Hi, 

> I know that prof. Smalltalks have full Win32 GUI binding, COM bindung
> etc. On the other side: Morpic seems interesting, but it's only a
> thing of squeak, isn't it, not portable ?

Actually it is portable *exactly* because it does not use the platfrom GUI
stuff.

[Hans N. Beck]  Hmmm. That's not clear to me. Two points: 
1. one can find Morphic only in Squeak environement - so it is not portable over all Smalltalk systems ??
2. GUI developments means developing for the widget based logic of /KDE/GNOME/Windows/Be. So developing
a interesting GUI which can not be ported to the target system becaus of completly different logic behind, it (the GUI
prototype in Smalltalk) is in this sense no portable. (TCL/TK is portable over the various systems,  but has a widget
based logic similar to Windows)

Conclusion:  If I want to build W32 GUI prototypes, I must use a (commercial) Smalltalk (example to make this 
more clear: Oberon ist a nice system with interesting GUI, but for Win32 development you should use Oberon/F, 
which has all win32 widges as  part of the system....)
Where is my knot in thought ?

Morphic is something like an OO-framebuffer. It's not just pixels on the
screen like most other GUIs but everything you see is an object (a Morph)
that can be manipulated and assembled into more complex entities like
dialogs or menus or whatever. You can learn about the Morphic philosophy
in the numerous Self papers (http://www.sun.com/research/self/)

[Hans N. Beck]  So the framebuffer the pixels are virtual ? That sounds to be
sloowwly. Or is there any efficient connection to hardware by a special object
(the canvas you mentioned ?) Ok, I'wd have a look at Self

Greetings

Hans

-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: not available
Type: application/ms-tnef
Size: 2888 bytes
Desc: not available
Url : http://lists.squeakfoundation.org/pipermail/squeak-dev/attachments/20010106/97eb7907/attachment.bin