8-)  Well, it just kinda slipped out I suppose.  I really liked the
other things you mentioned here.  My take is that the browsers are only
one dimension to the web.  There are much more interesting things that
are happening, and could be happening, under the covers.  I want my
interaction to be as multidimensional as possible and by that I mean
access to many(***) intelligent services that makes the experience truly
productive and robust from an interoperability stand point.  Perhaps put
up billboards along the hyperspace roadways to let people go
sightseeing.  like 'Hey mom, look it's a squeaker hive.  They're cool!' 
'yes, Honey, but it's only a small part of the entire hegemony.  They
are the the wizards of the day!'

cheers,
Rob

modesty disclaimer:  I am learning daily.  I stand in awe of the work
y'all have done here.  It's truly beautiful.  Talk about quantum
potential, I can't wait to see the Wave Function settle over the next
few months.  This is going to be one *hell* of a ride.  Space truckin
through Space Mountain.

agree at carltonfields.com wrote:
> 
> 'ts cool.  I'm not big into names anyway -- I was responding more to the suggestion that they had to be called "programs."
> 
> > -----Original Message-----
> > From: MIME :withers at vnet.net > Sent: Tuesday, February 08, 2000 1:52 PM
> > To: squeak at cs.uiuc.edu
> > Subject: Re: Squeak's web server
> > > > agree at carltonfields.com wrote:
> > > > Indeed, but they are a special kind of program, with a > special kind of promise.  The -lets are not only programs, > but they are programs that can exist on the net accessable > through URI's, are capable of being delivered through any > number of , ubiquitous browsers, and can deliver a kind of > functionality, pixel for pixel identical across platforms, > and with a performance that even Java (which promised all of > the above) can't hope to deliver.  Yes, they are a member of > a class called programs, but perhaps they are also a member > of a proper subclass of programs properly called 'applets'?
> > > > On the other hand, while we call them Squeaklets > affectionately, perhaps we ought to use the somewhat more > professional-sounding 'applets', or 'Squeak applets' instead?
> > > I feel very strongly against this.  There's enough corporate out there
> > to come up with some professional-sounding term.  In this set of
> > universes, let's call em whatever they want to be called and the heck
> > with conforming to some market.  Now, how's that go?  'The best way to
> > predict the future is to invent it'
> > > Sorry, you just poked a nerve on that one, dude :-)  Rob
> > > > > -----Original Message-----
> > > > From: MIME :jeffs at pstnet.com > Sent: Tuesday, February > 08, 2000 12:55 PM
> > > > To: squeak at cs.uiuc.edu
> > > > Subject: Re: Squeak's web server
> > > > > > >Let's  call them *programs*!
> > > > >
> > > > >(In case you can't tell the whole "applet", "servlet", > > "foo-let" jargon
> > > > >leaves me a bit grumpy ;))
> > > > > I agree here. A piece of code that works in the context > of another
> > > > program (say, an OS) is still a program.
> > > > > One could easily use other goofy jargonf or special > purpose programs
> > > > like "banger," "clanger", "tinkler" or whatever. But they're still
> > > > programs.
> > > > > --
> > > >     *************************************************
> > > >     Jeff Szuhay                <mailto:jeffs at pstnet.com>
> > > >     Lead Macintosh Engineer    voice: 412/271-5040 x 227
> > > >     Psychology Software Tools  <http://www.pstnet.com/>
> > > > > > >
> > > -- --------------------------------------------------
> > Smalltalking by choice.  Isn't it nice to have one!
> > > > >

-- 
--------------------------------------------------
Smalltalking by choice.  Isn't it nice to have one!