On 2009.07.08 09:19, Ian Trudel wrote:
> 2009/7/8 K. K. Subramaniam <subbukk at gmail.com>:
>   
>>>         have we got too comfy with Squeak and accepted its general state?
>>>       
>> You must be kidding :-). The diversity and volume of opinions in this list can
>> hardly constitute 'acceptance' ;-).
>>     
>
> He he he. But that's not what I meant. I think some of us got used to
> what Squeak is and then oversee the fact that it's not so
> approachable, especially to newcomers.
>
> The organization in general is still messy... using my previous
> example with the organization in the menus, I am still searching
> things in them after 8 years using Squeak. Where was that again? Or
> this? Or That? Practice makes perfect but, hey, there should be a
> statutory limit. :P
>
> Some people just sound like Squeak does not need a good spruce up. =)
>
> Ian.
>   
+10
(I'm on my second day trying to create a simple morph that fits around a 
few ellipses... The side effects of simple morphic operations is 
staggering. "Do the right thing" -- Bah . I prefer "No surprises")
--Trygve
-- 

Trygve Reenskaug       mailto: trygver at ifi.uio.no

Morgedalsvn. 5A         http://heim.ifi.uio.no/~trygver

N-0378 Oslo               Tel: (+47) 22 49 57 27

Norway

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: http://lists.squeakfoundation.org/pipermail/squeak-dev/attachments/20090708/d4ccbe75/attachment.htm