On Friday, April 20, 2001, at 12:52 AM, Tom wrote:

> On Thu, Apr 19, 2001 at 09:42:07AM -0400, Bijan Parsia wrote:
>> Anyhoo, none of our flapping gums is going to do much, since all these
>> lines are well known. Code is prolly more convincing.

> I think that's a separate question.  My personal opinion is that an
> advanced IDE should have automatic window management and it should 
> have a
> very rich set of key bindings.  But other's preferences may differ;
> not all people are alike.

Reasonable people may disagree on this point.  I don't see this as 
hugely important, but hey, that's what open source is about.  If a "very 
rich set of bindings" would be important to you as a user, prove it up.  
As Bijan put it, none of our flapping gums means anything -- code is 
convincing.

> But to attract new users, I think the main issues are the ability to
> customize the system to reduce cognitive load, the ability to solve
> real-world problems easily out of the box, and quick, unobtrusive 
> obvious
> paths for access to relevant help and documentation.   Emacs hardly 
> shines
> in these areas.  Squeak actually has a much better chance, since most
> of the bits and pieces already exist (key bindings, customizable LAF,
> OS interfaces, GUI widgets, help system); with Squeak, it's less about
> programming and more about packaging.

I don't get this.  Why is Squeak "more about packaging?"  To me, Squeak 
is more about the amazing power it has under the hood.
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: not available
Type: text/enriched
Size: 1576 bytes
Desc: not available
Url : http://lists.squeakfoundation.org/pipermail/squeak-dev/attachments/20010420/769109c7/attachment.bin