18/01/02 03:11:06, "Justin Walsh" <jwalsh at bigpond.net.au> wrote:

>I see your point Gary but, weren't all these features envisaged by the
>author/designer.

I'm sure they maybe could have possibly been. But that doesn't mean they have been 
implemented or the implementation figured out.

>Good well thought out designs give more freedom to desire: spontaneity (to
>be safely creative). >

What would does that mean in layman's terms or to a person who does not possess the privilege 
of wearing Kant-tinted-spectacles.

>Just the one unique concept, message passing, for
>instance.

There is no one unique concept.

Gary


>----- Original Message -----
>From: "Gary McGovern" <gary.play at btopenworld.com>
>To: <squeak-dev at lists.squeakfoundation.org>
>Sent: Friday, January 18, 2002 1:01 PM
>Subject: Re: [FYI] Java vs Squeak/Smalltalk
>
>
>> 16/01/02 17:47:45, "Justin Walsh" <jwalsh at bigpond.net.au> wrote:
>>
>> >Philosophically and Technically and, keeping concept IDE squarely in
>mind,
>> >St. is without a doubt, as close to perfect an IDE as it can possibly
>get.
>>
>> I wouldn't agree with that. The direct manipulation / etoy / scripting can
>be taken much further I'm
>> sure it will at one point (bearing in mind the objective of a Dynabook).
>And the method structure
>> could be improved to show dependencies and sequences (my user experience
>having not written
>> the methods).
>>
>> Gary
>> (Not wishing to be flamed as no offense is intended)
>>
>>
>
>
>