> Why, after 30 years, does Squeak still appear to be a non-standard,
> almost toy-like user experience in the IDE? Is it the case that
> changing that would be far too complex to undertake? Or is it that
> the community of Squeak users just isn't largely motivated to worry
> about this subject? Or is the absence of an economic incentive the
> problem? Or IS there a problem?

1.  What does that really mean, looks toy-like?  What's it gonna take,
please tell us?  A manly "gray metal" look like we've seen before or
some more rainbow gradients like we've seen before?
2.  What is THE "standard"?  Microsoft?  What, then, when Microsoft
changes its look again?  Are they then "non-standard" or their
followers?
2b.  Do you remember this rubbish, "All windows programs look alike
therefore once you've learned one you've learned them all.."?
3.  Even if it can be "offically" labelled "toy like," what is wrong
with that?  Too wimpy-looking?  What's wrong with wimpy-looking as long
as its easy and functional?
4.  Speaking of wimpy, someone (not you) once suggested "Squeak" was a
wimpy-sounding name, what do you think of "KA-POW!"?

> Thanks for any wisdom you can share. This is one of the two big
> objections I *always* get when I recommend someone look at Squeak as
> a possible solution to a problem for which it appears to me to be
> ideally suited linguistically and architecturally.

So I guess this group sets its priorities to building something, as you
said, "ideally suited linguistically and architecturally".  They
haven't spent as much time playing endlessly with colors, shadows,
gradients, only to please the latest group of popularist
superficialites who'll be gone as soon as the next Wired article tells
them where they need to go next to be cool.  Whew, sorry to say that,
at least you have my honesty.

IBM VisualAge had (has?) native widgets, that didn't save it..