<!DOCTYPE html PUBLIC "-//W3C//DTD HTML 4.01 Transitional//EN">
<html>
<head>
<meta content="text/html;charset=ISO-8859-1" http-equiv="Content-Type">
<title></title>
</head>
<body bgcolor="#ffffff" text="#000000">
Chris Muller wrote:
<blockquote
cite="mid20060707195014.8350.qmail@web31806.mail.mud.yahoo.com"
type="cite">
<blockquote type="cite">
<pre wrap="">Why, after 30 years, does Squeak still appear to be a non-standard,
almost toy-like user experience in the IDE? Is it the case that
changing that would be far too complex to undertake? Or is it that
the community of Squeak users just isn't largely motivated to worry
about this subject? Or is the absence of an economic incentive the
problem? Or IS there a problem?
</pre>
</blockquote>
<pre wrap=""><!---->
1. What does that really mean, looks toy-like? What's it gonna take,
please tell us? A manly "gray metal" look like we've seen before or
some more rainbow gradients like we've seen before?
2. What is THE "standard"? Microsoft? What, then, when Microsoft
changes its look again? Are they then "non-standard" or their
followers?
</pre>
</blockquote>
Exactly, Chris! I'm glad that Squeak doesn't follow the latest GUI fad.<br>
<br>
On the flip side, I do agree that we live in the age of the
"sound-byte". Most people are followers and the "look" of the tool
conveys the power of the tool.<br>
<br>
<blockquote
cite="mid20060707195014.8350.qmail@web31806.mail.mud.yahoo.com"
type="cite">
<pre wrap="">2b. Do you remember this rubbish, "All windows programs look alike
therefore once you've learned one you've learned them all.."?
3. Even if it can be "offically" labelled "toy like," what is wrong
with that? Too wimpy-looking? What's wrong with wimpy-looking as long
as its easy and functional?
4. Speaking of wimpy, someone (not you) once suggested "Squeak" was a
wimpy-sounding name, what do you think of "KA-POW!"?
</pre>
</blockquote>
ROFL! That's FUNNY!<br>
</body>
</html>