Dear Bert, you can note that I wasn't talking about EToys. I was being
completely general about Squeak.
Let me clarify that I said that because to destruct wrong ideas makes room for
new good ones. 
Think of imploding a an old building to make a 2.0 one.
Criticism has to be qualified and useful. Not just "constructive". 
Destruct crappy stuff that takes focus and momentum out of your goal.
If I talk to you about any "sugar with water" kind of criticism I'll not have
any chance of helping you to make any difference.
sebastian


> -----Mensaje original-----
> De: squeak-dev-bounces at lists.squeakfoundation.org 
> [mailto:squeak-dev-bounces at lists.squeakfoundation.org] En 
> nombre de Bert Freudenberg
> Enviado el: Thursday, July 02, 2009 14:23
> Para: The general-purpose Squeak developers list
> Asunto: Re: Usability and look-and-feel (was Re: [squeak-dev] 
> The future ofSqueak & Pharo (was Re: [Pharo-project] [ANN] 
> Pharo MIT licenseclean))
> 
> I have no idea where the myth comes from that the look of Squeak's  
> Smalltalk development tools has anything whatsoever to do 
> with Etoys,  
> but anyhow it would be a good idea to stop spreading it.
> 
> "Usability and look-and-feel" is what this thread is about so  
> constructive ideas (or even better code and designs) are 
> welcome, but  
> blaming it on Etoys is just cheap.
> 
> - Bert -
> 
> On 02.07.2009, at 19:09, Sebastian Sastre wrote:
> 
> > +1 too.
> >
> > Credit:
> > Squeak suffers from being hardly coupled with something that is  
> > intentionally
> > good hearted, theoretically well supported and it genuinely 
> deserves  
> > credit for
> > that. But time told it was a poor design. It won't help to deny  
> > reality. In
> > practice it didn't work well. Is not that it was completely 
> useless.  
> > It solves a
> > problem but is not the expected breakthrough. And there are 
> reasons  
> > for that.
> > Make space in your mind to stop ignoring those.
> >
> > Price:
> > The price the project (paid by its comunity) for soving 
> that problem  
> > became
> > unacceptably high and that's why the current crisis happened.
> >
> > UI without sense:
> > Squeak make countless undeniable and unjustifiable 
> violations to UI  
> > design and
> > usability principles. I mean BASIC ones. Please stop rationalizing  
> > on theoretic
> > stuff that didn't work. Prioritize what did work (inside 
> and outside  
> > ST
> > universe). Hint: there is iphone and the rest of the world. Honour  
> > design
> > principles or stop self lying about who can use your stuff. Decide  
> > if you want
> > to make software for human beings or damn engeneers/geeks.
> >
> > Oprtunity:
> > Do less to do more. I see Squeak has proved to be extremely 
> fertile.  
> > If Squeak
> > gets unbloated of features it can focus in doing less much much  
> > better and
> > profit from what is good at: fertile to fast implementing models.
> > But today nobody want just models. Those are easy. What 
> people wants  
> > is
> > convenience. Convenient interfaces with sense. So the 
> oportunity for  
> > squeak
> > would be to do that in interfaces that totally rock. Is not 
> the art  
> > of the
> > buttons or window borders. Is not adding features. Actually 
> removing  
> > some will
> > make it better. But is a lot more than that. Smalltalkers 
> are known  
> > by its
> > design capabilities? other comunities do. Hear how they think.  
> > Learn. Reinvent.
> >
> > Sustainability:
> > If a project do not have one clear mission, it will consume any  
> > momentum fast
> > while being unable to make rapport with any tribe to renew 
> efforts.  
> > It could had
> > value to prove some theory, but in the end (today) who cares? for  
> > other pruposes
> > it will be invisible: #fail.
> > Stop making artifacts that makes you beg for tolerance about UI (AKA
> > manuals/education?) crying with colleagues becaouse people "don't  
> > get it". Is
> > not their fault! Instead do something that is worth to put money  
> > into it.
> > Something inspiring. Something worthy to talk about (with 
> smalltalk  
> > outsiders).
> >
> > Sorry if this sounds hard but honest feedback is more 
> valuable than  
> > water with
> > sugar.
> >
> > sebastian
> >
> >> -----Mensaje original-----
> >> De: squeak-dev-bounces at lists.squeakfoundation.org
> >> [mailto:squeak-dev-bounces at lists.squeakfoundation.org] En
> >> nombre de Ramon Leon
> >> Enviado el: Wednesday, July 01, 2009 01:19
> >> Para: The general-purpose Squeak developers list
> >> Asunto: Re: Usability and look-and-feel (was Re: [squeak-dev]
> >> The future of Squeak & Pharo (was Re: [Pharo-project] [ANN]
> >> Pharo MIT licenseclean))
> >>
> >>> Bert, are you serious?
> >>>
> >>> Enough with the children! It's been done and redone and
> >> overdone. The
> >>> past and the future confounded. Why can't we live the
> >> present living?
> >>> You're talking about something that might (or might not) produce
> >>> engineers in the next, say, 20 years? Smalltalk will be around 50
> >>> years by then. I find it painful that our community wouldn't be a
> >>> little bit more practical, for a change..
> >>>
> >>> Right here, right now.
> >>>
> >>> Ian.
> >>>
> >>> PS: I am so sorry... I don't even have spare children to furiously
> >>> train on Squeak...
> >>>
> >>> --
> >>> http://mecenia.blogspot.com/
> >>
> >> +10
> >>
> >> Seriously, stop talking about kids, who cares, I'll be 
> retired by the
> >> time they're useful.  Programming languages are tools that are
> >> primarily used by and useful for adults, they should be aimed at
> >> adults.  I want Smalltalk to be usable now, not at some unspecified
> >> time in some imaginary future where it takes over the world by  
> >> getting
> >> kids before they've been introduced to other environments. 
>  It's pure
> >> fantasy to think this'll happen, it won't.  This is the 
> attitude that
> >> holds Squeak back and prevents anyone from taking it too seriously.
> >> This is why Pharo will continue to steal mind-share and Squeak will
> >> die.
> >>
> >> Ramon Leon
> >> http://onsmalltalk.com
> >>
> >
> >
> 
> 
> 
>