On 12 March 2010 08:00, Andreas Raab <andreas.raab at gmx.de> wrote:

>
> No problem. I just want us to be honest with our own shortcomings :-) Does
> Pharo look better? Yes. Does it have to stay that way? Hell, no. If it
> weren't for the problem of having 300k overrides and extensions in Polymorph
> we'd have long merged it. Unfortunately Polymorph is indeed a tricky beast
> to merge and it looks as if it may not be possible without help from the
> original authors. Who seem to be mostly Pharo oriented, too bad. We'll just
> have to work something out I guess :-)
>

Hi Andreas, I think you're being very hard on Squeak here. Certainly the
introduction of PolyMorph into Pharo made it clear how much room for change
and improvement there was in the Squeak image, but Botox, bitmapped fonts,
the new menu bar etc, in Squeak trunk have really closed that gap, certainly
to the point where (in my opinion) Squeak has the cleaner, more functional
appearance, while still maintaining its identity. What do you think are the
parts of the Squeak UI that are still most in need of improvement?
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: http://lists.squeakfoundation.org/pipermail/squeak-dev/attachments/20100312/00ee1fe8/attachment.htm