One of the reasons I think Java has been so successful is that the
documentation has traditionally embraced HTML, and many tools generated HTML
directly from the code. My feeling is that Squeak should be able to derive
similar benefits with BookMorphs (i.e. nice, consistent formatting, the
ability to provide a printed reference, shareable content, etc.).

What if Squeak generated documentation BookMorphs automatically, collecting
the class and method comments in a pleasant way? This would provide a basic
outline of the system, and provide a rough assesment of the "holes" in the
documentation. Ideally, this could be set up on a web site to simplify
integration (especially if many people are contributing to the document).

I think it would be great if the PWS could use the Andreas' plug in (is
there one that works on the Mac or Linux?) for the "Edit this page" link.
People could enter comments, descriptions, etc. directly into a bookmorph
editor, instead of typing HTML to edit their web pages. [I would like to
understand the relationship between BookMorphs and PWS. Can someone point me
at some appropriate resources?] IMHO, an obstacle for Swikis is that people
are turned off by the idea of typing in HTML directly (which you need to do
if you want formatting, or indented text). Of course, the controls for text
editing in a BookMorph could also be more intutive :-)

I was briefly inspired a few months ago to look at BookMorph as the
foundation for an idea processor, but I couldn't get into a mode where I was
actually articulating ideas versus trying to get a handle on the technology.
Serendipitously, the same day, Alan posted a message hinting that more
useful stuff in this area was on the horizon. Since then, Michal has
revisited golgi, which is extremely relevant. The integration of bookmorphs
with an outliner would help immensely in dealing with complex ideas (of
which Squeak is but one :-).

Does this make sense? I feel like I'm rambling but after reading over 250
Squeak messages in one day it also seems like some sort of convergence is
happening here :-)

Steve

> -----Original Message-----
> From: Alan Kay [mailto:Alan.Kay at disney.com]
>
> Bijan --
>
> I agree that this is the way it *should* be -- but, at present, the
> rhetoric for running code and being able to understand how it got there --
> and just what is there -- is quite different. Also, none of the browsers
> are good at showing the logic of the larger "application"
> artifact that the
> user encounters. (This is what led me/us long ago to want to have
> prototypical instances as exemplars of classes, and to have an
> "application
> browser". The latter would be greatly facilitated if there were more of a
> theory for doing such. E.g. Morphic has a theory of how a morph should be
> constructed, but there is still not a real Morph browser -- moreover, I
> think all would agree that there could be much more of a theory for larger
> useful tools, and then we could build a very nice
> browser/inspector/explorer/debugger that would make crystal clear how
> things are organized and used.
>      This is now -- IMO -- a very pressing need. Please contribute ideas.