[squeak-dev] Re: [ExperimentalCoreRelease] PharoCore-1.0-10508rc2 vs SL3dot11-9499-alpha

Andreas Raab andreas.raab at gmx.de
Fri Mar 12 16:28:44 UTC 2010

On 3/12/2010 2:34 AM, Michael Davies wrote:
> On 12 March 2010 08:00, Andreas Raab <andreas.raab at gmx.de
> <mailto:andreas.raab at gmx.de>> wrote:
>     No problem. I just want us to be honest with our own shortcomings
>     :-) Does Pharo look better? Yes. Does it have to stay that way?
>     Hell, no. If it weren't for the problem of having 300k overrides and
>     extensions in Polymorph we'd have long merged it. Unfortunately
>     Polymorph is indeed a tricky beast to merge and it looks as if it
>     may not be possible without help from the original authors. Who seem
>     to be mostly Pharo oriented, too bad. We'll just have to work
>     something out I guess :-)
> Hi Andreas, I think you're being very hard on Squeak here. Certainly the
> introduction of PolyMorph into Pharo made it clear how much room for
> change and improvement there was in the Squeak image, but Botox,
> bitmapped fonts, the new menu bar etc, in Squeak trunk have really
> closed that gap, certainly to the point where (in my opinion) Squeak has
> the cleaner, more functional appearance, while still maintaining its
> identity. What do you think are the parts of the Squeak UI that are
> still most in need of improvement?

Consistency. There is no consistent style to the UI. BTW, don't get me 
wrong, I *like* Squeak. I like all its little quirks, funky colors, 
everything. I'm just not kidding myself that if someone who isn't used 
to Squeak looks at it and looks at Pharo, they'd most likely say Pharo 
has an edge with Polymorph.

   - Andreas

More information about the Squeak-dev mailing list