Matthew,

=============================
Squeak is a toy, and therefore it looks like a toy. Aversion to
toys is (in my not-so-humble opinion) the worst thing that is
taught to programmers (adults?) today. Playing is the only way
to make new ideas. One must enjoy playing before they can
understand the purpose of Squeak. Until they realize "Squeak is
a Toy, and I am OK with that", they are missing the point. A
clean object memory, simple syntax, and easy debugging are just
implementation issues. The point of Squeak is to have fun
building; after that, everything else falls into place.
=============================

I must disagree, at least in part.  Nothing about having the _ability_
to create stuffy/boring/pick your insulting adjective forms-based
interfaces, etc., would take away from the ability to evolve and build
new and better interfaces.  Well, maybe native widgets would hurt it,
but having (for example) clerk-friendly morphs would not burden Squeak. 
Like it or not, sometimes one has to dress the part; that even applies
to software, at least if one wants to target certain kinds of users.

I will close as I usually do on such matters: look can be important, but
the feel of an interface is critical.

Bill



Wilhelm K. Schwab, Ph.D.
University of Florida
Department of Anesthesiology
PO Box 100254
Gainesville, FL 32610-0254

Email: bills at anest4.anest.ufl.edu
Tel: (352) 846-1285
FAX: (352) 392-7029