[UI] ToolBuilder

[Jason Johnson]

On 9/9/07, Matthew Fulmer <tapplek at gmail.com> wrote:
>
> The best thing to do would be store the created morph in some
> dictionary, then clone it when you want a new instance.  Code is
> much less manipulable than objects, and is not what the user
> should be concerned about. So better to leave it out of the
> picture entirely.

So if we find a way to solve this obviously solvable issue of saving
objects to file (we do that right now for the image) can Morphic be
used as described in Self?

I mean, my understanding of Self is that since you have no
meta-classes only objects, working in the system is like working in
Smalltalk inspectors and debuggers only.  And this is a nice, fun way
to work in Smalltalk as well when working with objects.

I think working this way is the advantage to Morphic and if we can't
do that then perhaps we should just decide that Morphic was made for
Self, not Smalltalk and move on.  It feels like trying to force a
solution where it doesn't belong when we talk about making builders
for Morphic.  Morphic should, itself, be the graphical builder for
Morphic applications and if it can't then what is it really bringing
besides a name?

Again, if I'm off base here, please help me out.