This is grand, but I think it may miss the point of the original quote. I
think that Smalltalk programmers are still programmers in spite of their
"more elegant" thought processes.

Like all programmers, we still have a nasty bias toward thinking about
problems in a way that is often completely alien to the needs of the person
at the receiving end of these thought processes.

It is dangerous to be smug. Results are everything.

Smalltalk may make things work out better in the longer term, but that could
easily be more a matter of individual philosophy and discipline than of any
inherit benefits of the language.

Squeakers are astoundingly bold in their willingness to tackle the most
difficult technical problems and prove that "it can be done" with Smalltalk.

Human interface is probably the hardest problem of all.
Can it be done better with Smalltalk?


Steve

> -----Original Message-----
> From: Donald Malcolm MacQueen [mailto:dmacq at erols.com]
> Sent: May 15, 1999 6:45 PM
> To: sqrmax at cvtci.com.ar; squeak at cs.uiuc.edu
> Subject: Re: Thinking about a better UI
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Andres Valloud <sqrmax at cvtci.com.ar>
> To: squeak at cs.uiuc.edu <squeak at cs.uiuc.edu>
> Date: Saturday, May 15, 1999 7:10 PM
> Subject: Re: Thinking about a better UI
>
>
> >Not to speak about really using my
> >time to think about the problem I'm solving instead of solving the
> problem
> >twice: once in my head, and then the problem of telling the computer
> to do
> >something similar to that...
>
> Hear, hear.
>
> Smalltalk allows me to implement  my "head" solution
> directly; other languages force me to twist my solution
> into their terms and limitations.
>
> I only have to solve the problem once in Smalltalk.
>
> Donald
> ----------------------------------------
> Donald M. MacQueen
> Registered Smalltalk Bigot
> ----------------------------------------
> I've tried the rest, now I use the best -- Smalltalk!
> ----------------------------------------
>
>