Hi, Matt!

Don't apologize for disagreeing; "happy-happy posts" seldom add much to the
body of knowledge.  Besides, I can state confidently that I've never learned
anything from someone with whom I started out in agreement on the matter.
(-:

> To my eye, early cars did look like carriages just replace the horses
> in front with an engine and a steering wheel (which seemed to have been
> taken from boats).  Some did call them horseless carriages.  I . . .

True to an extent; maybe it wasn't a great example (perhaps "books cannot
succeed until they resemble clay tablets" would have been better :-) but the
road from carriage to commercially successful automobiles left us mainly
with just the fundamental characteristics shared by almost all stable
wheeled vehicles -- platform, a means of guidance, and of course the wheels
themselves -- while shedding most of those specific only to horse-drawn
vehicles.  I don't want to drift off into vehicular history here, but I'm
sure I've never seen a self-propelled automobile controlled with reins and
whip, and powering the rear wheels ("putting the cart before the horse") was
the predominant mode from very early on.

>> Why can't the windows act like native windows?

Not to, er, beat a dead horse <g> but Squeak windows act *EXACTLY* like
native (Squeak) windows -- if I do something in Squeak on my Windows machine
I can know in advance how it will look on your Mac or the next guy's Linux
box or someone else's browser plugin.  That's the idea, IMHO; why should we
expect Squeak to "respect" each OS' way of doing things rather than
expecting the OS to respect the programmer's careful development work?
 More -- why should we promote the segregation of users (and programmers)
into opposing camps based on, of all things, the program that does
janitorial work for their CPU?  A student who attends a Mac-based school may
have to relearn almost everything if they go to work for a Linux- or
Windows-based employer.  With Squeak, the same student could be instantly
productive anywhere Squeak was running, never knowing or caring what was
beneath or behind it.

That's a sort of consistency I'd like to see.

Gary



----- Original Message -----
From: "Matthew McCowan" <Matthew_McCowan at littlehoop.cc>
To: <squeak-dev at lists.squeakfoundation.org>
Sent: Saturday, June 08, 2002 2:46 PM
Subject: Re: Killer Application (was: Squeak Foundation)


> On 6/8/02 7:21 AM, "Gary Fisher" <gafisher at sprynet.com> wrote:
>
> > To say that Squeak cannot succeed unless it becomes practically
> > indistinguishable from that which it should replace is reminiscent of
the
> > argument that automobiles could not succeed unless they looked like
> > carriages.
>
> To my eye, early cars did look like carriages just replace the horses
> in front with an engine and a steering wheel (which seemed to have been
> taken from boats).  Some did call them horseless carriages.  I
> would imagine this early connection allowed faster adoption and
> a good start on manufacturing (body of knowledge and know techniques).
> The modern car is an evolution that brought everyone along.
>
> > Squeak is not just another medium in which to build Windows or
> > Mac applications; that's far too limited a viewpoint.  That's
> > why your second statement, "On the other hand, when you think
> > about it, isn't Squeak itself the 'killer app'?" is so much
> > closer to the mark (and, coincidentally, exactly what I was
> > going to say. :-)  The trick, then, is to get the word out.
> > IMHO, at this point Squeak needs evangelists more than
> > developers.
>
> Linux works because of the Unix tradition.  C++, Java, and Perl add
> to the C family.  I still wish Squeak had a bridge back to normal
> programmers.  It looks so alien.  It has its own rules.  I really,
> really want to use it more, but I could never ship anything in it.
> I would violate the common experience of my users, I would have to
> provide more training.  I would love to do it, but I can't see the
> benefit in the additional education.  What does the Technicolor
> interface bring to the table?  Why can't the windows act like native
> windows?
>
> Maybe SqueakAsAnOperatingSystem should have been a bigger goal.  It
> would then focus people on the unique UI.  Maybe their should be a
> SqueakLite that is small, has the minimum needed to run, and adopts
> the native interface (maybe even using native widgets).  Modules will
> help things, but I look at my Mac running Squeak and see the Commanche /
> Swiki image open with the colors and fonts.  It feels like running
> X-Windows with a funky setup.  I don't want just another app, but I
> want it to "do the suit and tie thing" once in a while.
>
> I am sorry this wasn't a "happy happy" post, I just think this is one
> of the big items keeping me from using it all the time.
>
> Matt
>
>