On Saturday 08 June 2002 04:15 am, Karl Goiser wrote:

> It is my belief that Squeak's "unique" user interface means a
> killer application will never be built using it.  I cannot believe
> that anybody in their right mind would try to distribute an
> application that would look so "different" compared to the straight
> and narrow of, e.g., the Mac or Windows look and feel.

That's too strong a generalization. Just because you can't imagine 
someone doing an app with Squeak that contains (for instance) data 
entry forms or multiple wnidows doesn't mean that Squeak wouldn't 
work just fine for some other kind of app.

For instance, I'm building a visual programming language system. So 
far it doesn't have any user interface widgets other than toolbars 
and context menus. No data entry forms, no Squeak windows.

How would you identify this as a Squeak app? As far as I can tell, the 
same app could be done in any other language that offers GUI 
capabilities.

So what do you identify as Squeak's user interface? SystemWindows and 
the Pluggable* components? These could be viewed as custom objects 
that support a particular application (textual Smalltalk 
programming).

No one said you have to use them for your app.

-- 
Ned Konz
http://bike-nomad.com
GPG key ID: BEEA7EFE