> > Firstly it doesn't look conventional, it doesn't contain implicitly
> > standard GUI components like combo-boxes etc.
>
> Is there anything in Morphic that would keep you from building one easily?

Nothing but... When I noticed this fact in one of my articles, the reaction
of many readers was simple: "I like never-ending opportunities...".

> > Without mouse support you can
> > do absolutely nothing.
>
> What mouse support is missing?

You cannot control Morphic only using keyboard.


Your message is very nice introduction to the philosophy of Morphic. I know
it very well and I agree with you. I use the same arguments like you when I
have to advocate Morphic and Squeak. I like Morphic but I have to say that
it's hard to use in standard applications now.

Some loose ends are annoying. For example, I create a morph. It has to
behave like a system window (through overlapping) but the hierarchy of
system windows is protected by a SystemWindow metaclass interface - there
isn't any accessing method (maybe in newest versions is).

 But Morphic has great potential...

Pavel