On 2009.07.08 09:19, Ian Trudel wrote:
2009/7/8 K. K. Subramaniam <subbukk@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@ifi.uio.no

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

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

Norway