Rob....

Good to hear from you again here.

I agree; no need to stay with one UI, whatever it is. I'm anxious to  
get the wx stuff working because I want to turn my attention then to  
creating a graphical IDE for the construction of windows using the wx  
widgets. A direct-manipulation IDE is something I sorely miss in  
Smalltalk.

Dan
On Jul 8, 2006, at 4:50 PM, Rob Gayvert wrote:

> Dan,
>
> My 0.4 release was reasonably solid for Win32, but the Mac version  
> wasn't as good (partly my fault, partly the state of wxMac 2.5),  
> and the Linux version wasn't really usable. I'm hoping that the 0.5  
> release (coming RSN) will work well on all three platforms.
>
> As for all of the other discussion about wx/gtk/Spoon, I liked  
> Cees' response the best: Why one UI? There are pros and cons to any  
> UI toolkit, so the more options there are for Squeak, the more  
> opportunities there will be to use it. My goal with wxSqueak has  
> been to  keep it compatible with the latest release of Squeak, with  
> minimal VM changes, and maybe eventually no VM changes at all. And  
> ultimately, it should work fine with Spoon. But I think it should  
> always be an add-on package to some Squeak/Spoon core.
>
> .. Rob
>
> Dan Shafer wrote:
>> Cees.....
>> I am going by what Rob said about it. He advised me not to rely on  
>> it  for a project just yet, but I think he's actively working on  
>> it again.
>> Your news is encouraging. Perhaps Rob is being overly cautious.
>> Dan
>> On Jul 8, 2006, at 2:59 PM, Cees De Groot wrote:
>>> On 7/8/06, Dan Shafer <dan at shafermedia.com> wrote:
>>>
>>>> That may be the ultimate
>>>> solution for a lot of what i want to do on the desktop, but for the
>>>> near term, that won't satisfy my clients and colleagues because the
>>>> wxSqueak stuff isn't yet ready to release.
>>>>
>>> Why not? Did you test it? Find issues?
>>>
>>> I used it for a project last year, and whatever problems we had,  
>>> they
>>> weren't wx-related...
>>>
>
>