Jason Johnson wrote:
> Ah, now I see the confusion.  Part of the reason my messages get so
> long is I try to clarify things as much as I can to avoid confusion,
> but here I see I didn't explain what I meant by "programming
> visually".
>
>
>   
:)
>
> As Paul Graham said "a lot of the
> best ones were languages designed for their own authors to use, and a
> lot of the worst ones were designed for other people to use." [1].
> And this idea holds for designing systems as well no doubt.  My point
> was just that one also must balance this with practicality.  Make it
> for yourself, but make it so *you* can do real world common things
> with it as well as anything your mind can imagine.
>
>   
Fully agreed. Great quote!
>
>> If its GUI framework and tools are that good, why not
>> port them to Squeak?
>>     
>
> I suspect I will port certain features of it, though Smalltalk being a
> truly live environment removes the need for some of C#s more
> innovative features.
>   
:)
>   
>> It also has actual envelopes you can grab with the mouse to modify the
>> sound.
>>     
>
> But the chart-like morph is a stand alone morph that views on an
> envelope using a variation of the standard MVC, no?  In this case, I
> would expect it to behave exactly the same, though it will obviously
> be more lines of code in C#.  But the hard part is in defining the
> Envelope viewer, not in putting it on the form or wiring it up.
>
>   
The envelope viewer is the morph itself. That's the good part!
>
> A picture is worth a thousand words, but the book is always better
> then the movie.  I see programming more like a book/movie then a
> static picture. 
Great phrase! I really love it!

Cheers,
Juan Vuletich