Well, sometimes I send this to the maillist but never get answers.
I would like to know your opinion about this.
Squeak/Smalltalk is powerful, but for users, or developers in other environments (VB, C, Java etc..), looks like a toy. No games on it, No "famous" app's. All, etoys for kids and a mouse as logo. I think the squeak "world" needs changes, remove pinks colors in the image, and a large etc...
Oficial web need's a change, more modern (smalltalk.org too, looks like an abandoned project, and the news about the projects are old) ), writen in smalltalk. About the logo, I sugggest one time, would be interesting thath Squeak take a logo like squeakfoundation.
More developers means (not always but...) more packages, more tools, more code, more ideas. And I think we need change some things to get this.
¿What do you think about this? ¿How can I/we help with all of this?
I'm sure I'm not the only one with this things in her mind.
Cheers.
Lord ZealoN a écrit :
Well, sometimes I send this to the maillist but never get answers.
I would like to know your opinion about this.
Squeak/Smalltalk is powerful, but for users, or developers in other environments (VB, C, Java etc..), looks like a toy. No games on it, No "famous" app's. All, etoys for kids and a mouse as logo. I think the squeak "world" needs changes, remove pinks colors in the image, and a large etc...
You should try 3.9 and the squeak-dev image: http://damien.cassou.free.fr/squeak-dev/
¿What do you think about this? ¿How can I/we help with all of this?
You can participate to projects/teams like the Squeak Documentation Project or the creation of an image for developers. There are lots of developers waiting for help.
If you have ideas or web skills, you can help for the websites.
I'm sure I'm not the only one with this things in her mind.
Nearly everyone is. If you want to help, just do.
I would like to get a comlete reorganization of the menu because this is totally inefficient.... Such as open not the top item of the world menu.
I would like to know your opinion about this.
Squeak/Smalltalk is powerful, but for users, or developers in other environments (VB, C, Java etc..), looks like a toy. No games on it, No "famous" app's. All, etoys for kids and a mouse as logo. I think the squeak "world" needs changes, remove pinks colors in the image, and a large etc...
Agree. Have you checked the developers image?
Oficial web need's a change, more modern (smalltalk.org too, looks like an abandoned project, and the news about the projects are old) ),
www.squeak.org is much better than what it was used to be. Smalltalk.org is not a public web site.
writen in smalltalk. About the logo, I sugggest one time, would be interesting thath Squeak take a logo like squeakfoundation.
:) Tx I did it :) May be we could use this logo for the dev image. Now the official Smalltalk logo is [|] so the squeakfoundation one is cool.
More developers means (not always but...) more packages, more tools, more code, more ideas. And I think we need change some things to get this.
¿What do you think about this? ¿How can I/we help with all of this?
to prepare changes it would be good to have more tests, make a list of problems clearly identify and propose some solution. For example fixing the menu orders and items would be good.
I'm sure I'm not the only one with this things in her mind.
Indeed we are in sync.
Stef
On Sat, Oct 14, 2006 at 10:41:52AM +0200, Lord ZealoN wrote:
Well, sometimes I send this to the maillist but never get answers.
I would like to know your opinion about this.
Squeak/Smalltalk is powerful, but for users, or developers in other environments (VB, C, Java etc..), looks like a toy. No games on it, No "famous" app's. All, etoys for kids and a mouse as logo. I think the squeak "world" needs changes, remove pinks colors in the image, and a large etc...
This may get me in trouble, but I will make a bold claim:
Squeak is a toy. That is a good thing.
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.
Most programmers (myself included) have been brainwashed by companies invading the school system with their agenda. That is why terrible things like java are allowed to exist. We are told:
- Everyone wants a consistent interface - You need complicated software to develop software - You need to go through the university system to be a programmer - Stay away from fast-moving platforms (i.e., the living and active ones with real ideas) - Don't play with toys; do your work
Alan Kay has asserted that businesses are not very creative and are stuck in a rut. He says that the only way to make progress is to get un-brainwashed minds (mostly children) into the realm of programming.
Most programmers have spent most of their time writing the same code over and over again, and have come to believe that that is the only way to be productive. Creativity is long-gone. In my opinion, overcoming the user interface is the least of our problems; much more difficult is to overcome the ingrained behavior of sticking with the old, stable, and dead platforms that have proliferated the programming world.
Computers are much newer than most people would like to think. Like Alan Kay said, it took 150 years after the printing press was invented for newspapers to become common. Before that, they were only used to do old tasks, like print Bibles.
Computers today are only used (by most people, businesses, and programmers) to do old tasks, like communication, documentation, and art creation. The new ability that computers have, which is hardly used or even acknowledged, is the ability to think. Computers and humans together, can think in ways that were impossible before. Scientists have some understanding of that ability, but, the more programmers solve the task at hand, the less we will solve the real problem, which is thinking in a new way.
Computer-aided thinking is the problem that Squeak and EToys are designed to solve. It is pretty much the only system with that goal in mind, and few people even realize that there is a problem. This is the real issue that confronts people who are not familiar with Squeak: understanding that it solves a real problem. The color scheme is not the issue.
Thus I think that looking like a toy is a good thing. However, there is always value in meeting the others halfway, so another color scheme is a good idea.
Oficial web need's a change, more modern (smalltalk.org too, looks like an abandoned project, and the news about the projects are old) ), writen in smalltalk. About the logo, I sugggest one time, would be interesting thath Squeak take a logo like squeakfoundation.
Yes, the web person recently left, and his position has not been filled yet.
More developers means (not always but...) more packages, more tools, more code, more ideas. And I think we need change some things to get this.
Indeed. More developers will be able to help with the implementation issues, and that is a very good thing. However, we must not lose sight of the fact that Squeak is, and must be, a toy that encourages exploration first, and practicality second.
?What do you think about this? ?How can I/we help with all of this?
I'm sure I'm not the only one with this things in her mind.
Cheers.
::Mi blog:: http://blog.lordzealon.com
Linux-User: #370919
Yes, yes, yes!
Great post Matthew! Many of the things you say were forgotten by other Smalltalk dialects. Keeping those ideas is one of distinctive aspects of Squeak. Let's not forget about them!
Cheers, Juan Vuletich
Matthew Fulmer wrote:
This may get me in trouble, but I will make a bold claim:
Squeak is a toy. That is a good thing.
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.
Most programmers (myself included) have been brainwashed by companies invading the school system with their agenda. That is why terrible things like java are allowed to exist. We are told:
- Everyone wants a consistent interface
- You need complicated software to develop software
- You need to go through the university system to be a programmer
- Stay away from fast-moving platforms (i.e., the living and active ones with real ideas)
- Don't play with toys; do your work
Alan Kay has asserted that businesses are not very creative and are stuck in a rut. He says that the only way to make progress is to get un-brainwashed minds (mostly children) into the realm of programming.
Most programmers have spent most of their time writing the same code over and over again, and have come to believe that that is the only way to be productive. Creativity is long-gone. In my opinion, overcoming the user interface is the least of our problems; much more difficult is to overcome the ingrained behavior of sticking with the old, stable, and dead platforms that have proliferated the programming world.
Computers are much newer than most people would like to think. Like Alan Kay said, it took 150 years after the printing press was invented for newspapers to become common. Before that, they were only used to do old tasks, like print Bibles.
Computers today are only used (by most people, businesses, and programmers) to do old tasks, like communication, documentation, and art creation. The new ability that computers have, which is hardly used or even acknowledged, is the ability to think. Computers and humans together, can think in ways that were impossible before. Scientists have some understanding of that ability, but, the more programmers solve the task at hand, the less we will solve the real problem, which is thinking in a new way.
Computer-aided thinking is the problem that Squeak and EToys are designed to solve. It is pretty much the only system with that goal in mind, and few people even realize that there is a problem. This is the real issue that confronts people who are not familiar with Squeak: understanding that it solves a real problem. The color scheme is not the issue.
Thus I think that looking like a toy is a good thing. However, there is always value in meeting the others halfway, so another color scheme is a good idea.
Oficial web need's a change, more modern (smalltalk.org too, looks like an abandoned project, and the news about the projects are old) ), writen in smalltalk. About the logo, I sugggest one time, would be interesting thath Squeak take a logo like squeakfoundation.
Yes, the web person recently left, and his position has not been filled yet.
More developers means (not always but...) more packages, more tools, more code, more ideas. And I think we need change some things to get this.
Indeed. More developers will be able to help with the implementation issues, and that is a very good thing. However, we must not lose sight of the fact that Squeak is, and must be, a toy that encourages exploration first, and practicality second.
?What do you think about this? ?How can I/we help with all of this?
I'm sure I'm not the only one with this things in her mind.
Cheers.
::Mi blog:: http://blog.lordzealon.com
Linux-User: #370919
The "other" kind of thing that "can be played with" is an "instrument" (musical, wood or metal shaping, etc.). Instruments are partly "mess around toys" and partly "serious toys". And Art enters in when one starts to play on an instrument and around with an instrument. Dan and I had this in mind when we designed and built Smalltalk.
Cheers,
Alan
At 09:57 AM 10/14/2006, Matthew Fulmer wrote:
On Sat, Oct 14, 2006 at 10:41:52AM +0200, Lord ZealoN wrote:
Well, sometimes I send this to the maillist but never get answers.
I would like to know your opinion about this.
Squeak/Smalltalk is powerful, but for users, or developers in other environments (VB, C, Java etc..), looks like a toy. No games on it, No "famous" app's. All, etoys for kids and a mouse as logo. I think the squeak "world" needs changes, remove pinks colors in the image, and a large etc...
This may get me in trouble, but I will make a bold claim:
Squeak is a toy. That is a good thing.
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.
Most programmers (myself included) have been brainwashed by companies invading the school system with their agenda. That is why terrible things like java are allowed to exist. We are told:
- Everyone wants a consistent interface
- You need complicated software to develop software
- You need to go through the university system to be a programmer
- Stay away from fast-moving platforms (i.e., the living and active ones with real ideas)
- Don't play with toys; do your work
Alan Kay has asserted that businesses are not very creative and are stuck in a rut. He says that the only way to make progress is to get un-brainwashed minds (mostly children) into the realm of programming.
Most programmers have spent most of their time writing the same code over and over again, and have come to believe that that is the only way to be productive. Creativity is long-gone. In my opinion, overcoming the user interface is the least of our problems; much more difficult is to overcome the ingrained behavior of sticking with the old, stable, and dead platforms that have proliferated the programming world.
Computers are much newer than most people would like to think. Like Alan Kay said, it took 150 years after the printing press was invented for newspapers to become common. Before that, they were only used to do old tasks, like print Bibles.
Computers today are only used (by most people, businesses, and programmers) to do old tasks, like communication, documentation, and art creation. The new ability that computers have, which is hardly used or even acknowledged, is the ability to think. Computers and humans together, can think in ways that were impossible before. Scientists have some understanding of that ability, but, the more programmers solve the task at hand, the less we will solve the real problem, which is thinking in a new way.
Computer-aided thinking is the problem that Squeak and EToys are designed to solve. It is pretty much the only system with that goal in mind, and few people even realize that there is a problem. This is the real issue that confronts people who are not familiar with Squeak: understanding that it solves a real problem. The color scheme is not the issue.
Thus I think that looking like a toy is a good thing. However, there is always value in meeting the others halfway, so another color scheme is a good idea.
Oficial web need's a change, more modern (smalltalk.org too, looks like an abandoned project, and the news about the projects are old) ), writen in smalltalk. About the logo, I sugggest one time, would be interesting thath Squeak take a logo like squeakfoundation.
Yes, the web person recently left, and his position has not been filled yet.
More developers means (not always but...) more packages, more tools, more code, more ideas. And I think we need change some things to get this.
Indeed. More developers will be able to help with the implementation issues, and that is a very good thing. However, we must not lose sight of the fact that Squeak is, and must be, a toy that encourages exploration first, and practicality second.
?What do you think about this? ?How can I/we help with all of this?
I'm sure I'm not the only one with this things in her mind.
Cheers.
::Mi blog:: http://blog.lordzealon.com
Linux-User: #370919
-- Matthew Fulmer
Alan, Reportedly, Yehudi Menuhin got a toy violin when he was a toddler. Angrily, he trough it away: "It won't sing!". He must later have been given a better one because he began learning violin seriously at age three. He gave his first performance as a solo violinist at the age of seven, alongside the San Francisco Symphony Orchestra.
My point: The word "toy" is often taken as an antonym of "tool". A toy violin, a toy hammer, a toy knife - all useless and should never be given to children. Better give them real instruments and tools. A real violin, even if small. A real hammer. A sharp knife.
Squeak should not be a "toy" that may look like the real thing, but isn't. (There are many other meanings of "toy", but I am confident many people share my view when the encounter the word out of context).
My ideal for Squeak is that it should act as a resonance box for the user's brain; amplifying and augmenting his or her thoughts just as the body of a violin fills out the performer's intentions.
A good user interface bridges the mismatch between the user's mental model and the computer's data model.
As in the world of music, Squeak should have many levels. Each should be carefully specified, designed and implemented. The result should permit all levels of personal involvement from the equivalent of a gramophone, through karaoke, to full fledged instruments or even instrument-making.
A musician often plays works composed by other people. This requires a common musical notation, a language. An orchestra involves many musicians; their performance coordinated by a maestro. A business needs software that implements policy, aids communication and supports business processes as well as individual workers. Most software used "as is" with room for personal variations everywhere.
IMO, all this makes the applaudable cleanup efforts by Marcus, Stephane, and many others not only desirable, but essential for all kinds of Squeak usage (possibly excluding toys that won't sing).
Cheers --Trygve
At 19:29 14.10.2006, Alan wrote:
The "other" kind of thing that "can be played with" is an "instrument" (musical, wood or metal shaping, etc.). Instruments are partly "mess around toys" and partly "serious toys". And Art enters in when one starts to play on an instrument and around with an instrument. Dan and I had this in mind when we designed and built Smalltalk.
Cheers,
Alan
At 09:57 AM 10/14/2006, Matthew Fulmer wrote:
On Sat, Oct 14, 2006 at 10:41:52AM +0200, Lord ZealoN wrote:
Well, sometimes I send this to the maillist but never get answers.
I would like to know your opinion about this.
Squeak/Smalltalk is powerful, but for users, or developers in other environments (VB, C, Java etc..), looks like a toy. No games on it, No "famous" app's. All, etoys for kids and a mouse as logo. I think the squeak "world" needs changes, remove pinks colors in the image, and a large etc...
This may get me in trouble, but I will make a bold claim:
Squeak is a toy. That is a good thing.
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.
Most programmers (myself included) have been brainwashed by companies invading the school system with their agenda. That is why terrible things like java are allowed to exist. We are told:
- Everyone wants a consistent interface
- You need complicated software to develop software
- You need to go through the university system to be a programmer
- Stay away from fast-moving platforms (i.e., the living and active ones with real ideas)
- Don't play with toys; do your work
Alan Kay has asserted that businesses are not very creative and are stuck in a rut. He says that the only way to make progress is to get un-brainwashed minds (mostly children) into the realm of programming.
Most programmers have spent most of their time writing the same code over and over again, and have come to believe that that is the only way to be productive. Creativity is long-gone. In my opinion, overcoming the user interface is the least of our problems; much more difficult is to overcome the ingrained behavior of sticking with the old, stable, and dead platforms that have proliferated the programming world.
Computers are much newer than most people would like to think. Like Alan Kay said, it took 150 years after the printing press was invented for newspapers to become common. Before that, they were only used to do old tasks, like print Bibles.
Computers today are only used (by most people, businesses, and programmers) to do old tasks, like communication, documentation, and art creation. The new ability that computers have, which is hardly used or even acknowledged, is the ability to think. Computers and humans together, can think in ways that were impossible before. Scientists have some understanding of that ability, but, the more programmers solve the task at hand, the less we will solve the real problem, which is thinking in a new way.
Computer-aided thinking is the problem that Squeak and EToys are designed to solve. It is pretty much the only system with that goal in mind, and few people even realize that there is a problem. This is the real issue that confronts people who are not familiar with Squeak: understanding that it solves a real problem. The color scheme is not the issue.
Thus I think that looking like a toy is a good thing. However, there is always value in meeting the others halfway, so another color scheme is a good idea.
Oficial web need's a change, more modern (smalltalk.org too, looks like an abandoned project, and the news about the projects are old) ), writen in smalltalk. About the logo, I sugggest one time, would be interesting thath Squeak take a logo like squeakfoundation.
Yes, the web person recently left, and his position has not been filled yet.
More developers means (not always but...) more packages, more tools, more code, more ideas. And I think we need change some things to get this.
Indeed. More developers will be able to help with the implementation issues, and that is a very good thing. However, we must not lose sight of the fact that Squeak is, and must be, a toy that encourages exploration first, and practicality second.
?What do you think about this? ?How can I/we help with all of this?
I'm sure I'm not the only one with this things in her mind.
Cheers.
::Mi blog:: http://blog.lordzealon.com
Linux-User: #370919
-- Matthew Fulmer
This may get me in trouble, but I will make a bold claim:
Squeak is a toy. That is a good thing.
Come on exploration and dynamism is not equal to toy. Squeak is a dynamic environment but this is not a toy. The fact that you interact easily with the objects that populate it does nto mean that this is a toy.
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.
Lot of code could be much cleaner and we would be able to inent much faster new things.
- Everyone wants a consistent interface
Do you want a system where each window has a totally different key binding. Consistency is good.
- You need complicated software to develop software
- You need to go through the university system to be a programmer
Why not, if you can get a nice teacher teaching what you want to learn. I would pay to get the teachers that can teach me what I want to learn.
- Stay away from fast-moving platforms (i.e., the living and active ones with real ideas)
- Don't play with toys; do your work
Squeak is a toy, and therefore it looks like a toy.
Aversion to
To be more precise, I'd say the Squeak Community uses it that way in most cases. Most people here just want to try all kinds of stuff and don't care about the GUI. They use Squeak to experiment because the environment allows you to rapidly develop/try/modify whatever you do which is not the case with all environments.
I'd love to see a decent UI in Squeak. How would it impact how you use Squeak? It would have no impact at all but it would definitely attract a new bunch of developers that have issues with Squeak's look.
Personally, I do the same things in Dolphin Pro that I do in Squeak. It's just a bit more pleasant in Dolphin since my "experiments" have a "more professionnal" look than they have in Morphic.
Having a decent UI wouldn't take the fun out of Squeak... It would just give it more "professionalism" or a more "this is serious stuff" to it and I guess a lot more people would start using it for commercial projects.
VisualWorks suffered from the same problem for years... All our clients had issues with the look and feel of our product (it was on 2.5). They were totally pleased with the functionnalities and how easy we could deliver them modifications and new functionalities but the GUI really bogged them. It had that "not really a real Windows UI" kinda perception that made them even consider other "nicer" products that didn't even have a tenth of the functionnalities we had.
But for most people (in the commercial world), the UI is the first impression they have of your product and when it looks like Morphic (i.e. really far from a Windows XP look and feel), they don't even go further and see what's "under the hood" only because "it looks crappy" to them...
I guess what I'm trying to say is that the UI in Squeak dones't make it a toy... I can experiment as much in VisualAge or Dolphin as in Squeak... It's how you use it that...
I can use my iPod for fun but if I use it to hit a nail, does it suddenly become a hammer?
----------------- Benoit St-Jean Yahoo! Messenger: bstjean A standpoint is an intellectual horizon of radius zero. (Albert Einstein)
Benoit St-Jean puso en su mail :
I'd love to see a decent UI in Squeak.
Again and again the same thing. What is a decent UI ? Like a Windows app ? I could' understand this Lemming behavior. Again for all what think they need this look, go for Zurgle and resurrect it.
Edgar
__________________________________________________ Pregunt�. Respond�. Descubr�. Todo lo que quer�as saber, y lo que ni imaginabas, est� en Yahoo! Respuestas (Beta). �Probalo ya! http://www.yahoo.com.ar/respuestas
No Edgar, you misunderstood me... A decent UI is a UI that looks native... One to which the user can relate to. That looks like a Mac on a Mac, like Windows on Windows, etc.
Now, regardless of the platform, you get Morphic. I personally have nothing against Morphic it's just that it bothers a lot of people and really doesn't help bringing new people onboard.
--- "Edgar J. De Cleene" edgardec2001@yahoo.com.ar wrote:
Benoit St-Jean puso en su mail :
I'd love to see a decent UI in Squeak.
Again and again the same thing. What is a decent UI ? Like a Windows app ? I could' understand this Lemming behavior. Again for all what think they need this look, go for Zurgle and resurrect it.
Edgar
__________________________________________________ Preguntá. Respondé. Descubrí. Todo lo que querías saber, y lo que ni imaginabas, está en Yahoo! Respuestas (Beta). ¡Probalo ya! http://www.yahoo.com.ar/respuestas
----------------- Benoit St-Jean Yahoo! Messenger: bstjean A standpoint is an intellectual horizon of radius zero. (Albert Einstein)
Actually, if the UI was more attractive, it would not have to be native. I think there are not too many people complaining about Firefox not using native widgets.
- Bert -
Am 15.10.2006 um 01:15 schrieb Benoit St-Jean:
No Edgar, you misunderstood me... A decent UI is a UI that looks native... One to which the user can relate to. That looks like a Mac on a Mac, like Windows on Windows, etc.
Now, regardless of the platform, you get Morphic. I personally have nothing against Morphic it's just that it bothers a lot of people and really doesn't help bringing new people onboard.
--- "Edgar J. De Cleene" edgardec2001@yahoo.com.ar wrote:
Benoit St-Jean puso en su mail :
I'd love to see a decent UI in Squeak.
Again and again the same thing. What is a decent UI ? Like a Windows app ? I could' understand this Lemming behavior. Again for all what think they need this look, go for Zurgle and resurrect it.
Edgar
__________________________________________________ Preguntá. Respondé. Descubrí. Todo lo que querías saber, y lo que ni imaginabas, está en Yahoo! Respuestas (Beta). ¡Probalo ya! http://www.yahoo.com.ar/respuestas
Benoit St-Jean Yahoo! Messenger: bstjean A standpoint is an intellectual horizon of radius zero. (Albert Einstein)
On Oct 15, 2006, at 1:15 AM, Benoit St-Jean wrote:
A decent UI is a UI that looks native... One to which the user can relate to. That looks like a Mac on a Mac, like Windows on Windows, etc.
I would replace look by feel. I don't mind the graphical look of the app on mac, or windows, or linux. To take mac for example, you have various types of GUIs. Look at iTunes, Mail, Safari (the same is happening with the new microsoft office look and classic windows look...) they all have 3 different looks, some are intented to be one- window-only, others multi-windows ... The common factor to all OSX apps is the feel, the behavior. command+Q quits my app, command+W closes the current window. Take command+C, command+V , they work the same in squeak and my other apps, so squeak integrates (feels) with the other apps. The windowing of Squeak can be weird, especially since most window managers handle windows separately. But I just need to launch Eclipse to see that problem again in a more "mainstream" technology...
But I was taught programming with Smalltalk, so I'm not really subjective. I see everything else from a Smalltalk perspective.
Yann
Yann Monclair a écrit :
A decent UI is a UI that looks native... One to which the user can relate to. That looks like a Mac on a Mac, like Windows on Windows, etc.
why not having a web based UI. With seaside and scriptaculous, this shouldn't be really hard. It will look native, modern ;) and will be an excellent show room for squeak. When I'll have a bit of time, I'll try a "live" browser... Also something fun would be a comet browser... so we'll have a collaborative development environment ;) ...
Concerning Squeak UI, I hated it first, and now I'm used to it and nearly a fan of it. Squeak to me is a bit like a workshop you have to organize. To me, the one window approach makes realize that we work in an image ;). I'm not looking forward handling windows separately anymore. So you have to get used to it, you have your own environment. Now, I use a squeak-dev image, plus repositories and some code to enhance the interface stored in Monticello package... Some of my favorite options, Tracing message browser and reverseWindowStagger to open windows differently. CollapseAll in window menu is cool too. I'd also like to have menu in sort of flaps. For now I have a permanent open menu and window menu... And I'm dreaming of opengl effect à la mac ;)
Serious squeak ? The fact that my development image is around 50Mb (+/-)... including lots of stuff, UI, webserver, smalltalk core.... just impressed any time I realize that ! Sure it could be enhanced, but to me it's more a question of ergonomy, and feel as said Yann
I would replace look by feel. I don't mind the graphical look of the app on mac, or windows, or linux. To take mac for example, you have various types of GUIs. Look at iTunes, Mail, Safari (the same is happening with the new microsoft office look and classic windows look...) they all have 3 different looks, some are intented to be one-window-only, others multi-windows ... The common factor to all OSX apps is the feel, the behavior. command+Q quits my app, command+W closes the current window. Take command+C, command+V , they work the same in squeak and my other apps, so squeak integrates (feels) with the other apps. The windowing of Squeak can be weird, especially since most window managers handle windows separately. But I just need to launch Eclipse to see that problem again in a more "mainstream" technology...
Cédrick
Benoit,
No Edgar, you misunderstood me... A decent UI is a UI that looks native... One to which the user can relate to. That looks like a Mac on a Mac, like Windows on Windows, etc.
I think Edgar's question is valid. QuickTime for Windows doesn't look "native" at all, but Windows users seem to be ok with it. (For that matter, Windows Media Player doesn't look like a Windows app at all.)
Current Morphic is not geared toward making these "Title-bar and menu-bar at top" apps, and I can imagine it can be a problem for sometime. "Decent UI" is something else. That is why I think Edgar's question, "what is a decent UI" valid. (And I don't know the answer.)
-- Yoshiki
Hi All:
2006/10/14, Yoshiki Ohshima yoshiki@squeakland.org:
I think Edgar's question is valid. QuickTime for Windows doesn't look "native" at all, but Windows users seem to be ok with it. (For that matter, Windows Media Player doesn't look like a Windows app at all.)
Current Morphic is not geared toward making these "Title-bar and menu-bar at top" apps, and I can imagine it can be a problem for sometime. "Decent UI" is something else. That is why I think Edgar's question, "what is a decent UI" valid. (And I don't know the answer.)
-- Yoshiki
May be a "decent UI" is today the sort of Web 2.0 UI. In this case the discussion about native Windows, Mac or so could be a waste of time, because seems that the web 2.0 (with lot of javascript) is the "state of the art" UI.
Develop such sort of UI is perfectly possible with Squeak and some new alternatives are coming with the work of Diego GD. (See it!).
About squeak.org I disagree with Lord.........to me is really useful, I find each thing I need and not see any problem with the site.
Cheers.
On 14-Oct-06, at 4:15 PM, Benoit St-Jean wrote:
No Edgar, you misunderstood me... A decent UI is a UI that looks native... One to which the user can relate to. That looks like a Mac on a Mac, like Windows on Windows, etc.
Well my basic response has be 'yuck' because the windows and mac UIs are pretty nasty; I won't offer an opinion on any of the X11 based ones because the last one I saw was a while ago and it looked like a very poor copy of the worst parts of windows.
But if you really want host-like UI, try wxSqueak. If you want multiple host windows with the option to draw your own within those windows, try using the Ffenestri code. Come on guys, if this is important to you, put some damn effort into it.
tim -- tim Rowledge; tim@rowledge.org; http://www.rowledge.org/tim Strange OpCodes: XO: Execute Operator
From: Benoit St-Jean bstjean@yahoo.com Reply-To: The general-purpose Squeak developers listsqueak-dev@lists.squeakfoundation.org To: The general-purpose Squeak developers listsqueak-dev@lists.squeakfoundation.org Subject: Re: Serious Squeak (other "survey") Date: Sat, 14 Oct 2006 11:18:32 -0700 (PDT)
Personally, I do the same things in Dolphin Pro that I do in Squeak. It's just a bit more pleasant in Dolphin since my "experiments" have a "more professionnal" look than they have in Morphic.
But does it have to be this way? Is there some fundamental problem with Morphic that makes it look the way it does? I was under the impression that the reason squeak went with Morphic was because it was a more advanced concept. Is this incorrect?
VisualWorks suffered from the same problem for years... All our clients had issues with the look and feel of our product (it was on 2.5). They were totally pleased with the functionnalities and how easy we could deliver them modifications and new functionalities but the GUI really bogged them. It had that "not really a real Windows UI" kinda perception that made them even consider other "nicer" products that didn't even have a tenth of the functionnalities we had.
But for most people (in the commercial world), the UI is the first impression they have of your product and when it looks like Morphic (i.e. really far from a Windows XP look and feel), they don't even go further and see what's "under the hood" only because "it looks crappy" to them...
And this is a valid way for them to think. Software needs to move forward, not backward. If a package doesn't have a pretty bow, then for most people it doesn't matter *what* is inside, because they aren't going to bother to look. Who would hire some guy with a terrible hair cut, dirty cloths and smells terrible as their CEO (the companies most visable person)? No one. And the software they use is also a reflection of them in a similar way.
Having said all that, I am personally not overly concerned about the look of Morphic because seaside makes the best looking pages I have seen. And I think the "fat client" days are on their way out. It's just too painful to fight with client setup issues. If your competitor can sell the same application as you, with the same functionality, but it's web based then you are going to lose. While you are trying to get a new client build to deal with the latest Windows XP patch, they will be adding new features.
From: stephane ducasse stephane.ducasse@gmail.com Reply-To: The general-purpose Squeak developers listsqueak-dev@lists.squeakfoundation.org To: The general-purpose Squeak developers listsqueak-dev@lists.squeakfoundation.org Subject: Re: Serious Squeak (other "survey") Date: Sat, 14 Oct 2006 19:59:36 +0200
This may get me in trouble, but I will make a bold claim:
Squeak is a toy. That is a good thing.
Come on exploration and dynamism is not equal to toy. Squeak is a dynamic environment but this is not a toy. The fact that you interact easily with the objects that populate it does nto mean that this is a toy.
Yea, I agree with Alan here. Instrument is a much better word. A toy is something that is *only* for playing. It can't do anything serious or useful, ever.
- You need complicated software to develop software
- You need to go through the university system to be a programmer
Why not, if you can get a nice teacher teaching what you want to learn. I would pay to get the teachers that can teach me what I want to learn.
Yes. And universities are good because they have the best free labor in existance. Not only is the labor free, but the work is done by a pretty smart (and possibly brilliant) person. :)
Squeak is a toy. That is a good thing.
Come on exploration and dynamism is not equal to toy. Squeak is a dynamic environment but this is not a toy. The fact that you interact easily with the objects that populate it does nto mean that this is a toy.
I have to agree with this. I see that ludism should not be an obligatory path to exploration and development. Pedagogy allready knows that it is in the childhod phase, but how can ensure that is the case to scale or map that reasoning to an adult and keep healty? With adulthood as a goal it really makes any sense? Suggestion: perhaps it worth having a look to see if there are trends of infantilization in a biologically adult person.
Thinking about this, the most succesful investors use the money in an adult way. I mean here economically self sufficient persons. Childs are money dependant of others (usually parents). I think that thinking more like inverstors do could be helpful here.
Regards,
Sebastian
On Sat, Oct 14, 2006 at 10:41:52AM +0200, Lord ZealoN wrote:
Well, sometimes I send this to the maillist but never get answers.
I would like to know your opinion about this.
Squeak/Smalltalk is powerful, but for users, or developers in other environments (VB, C, Java etc..), looks like a toy. No games on it, No "famous" app's. All, etoys for kids and a mouse as logo. I think the squeak "world" needs changes, remove pinks colors in the image, and a large etc...
No serious apps? Well I think I'd call large multinational company payroll systems serious. And major financial systems and a number of big military apps. A non-trivial number of web apps running on Seaside. IIRC LibertyBasic is implemented on Smalltalk. And then there is Squeak, which I consider a pretty serious application, for all it's faults.
'a mouse for a logo' - well, yes and how is that bad compared to a penguin, a coffee cup, a camel or any other logo? I happen to think (but then I'm biased) that it looks pretty damn good on all the books, caps, sweatshirts, badges, tshirts etc that I've been sent. Nobody has done a squeak logo lambourghini to send me yet....
Aside from that I concur very much with what matthew said.
tim -- tim Rowledge; tim@rowledge.org; http://www.rowledge.org/tim Useful random insult:- Hypnotized as a child and couldn't be woken.
Hello Matthew,
MF> Squeak is a toy. That is a good thing.
thanks for reminding us. I may differ in in details but I met smalltalk via VW, they kindly mentioned Squeak in their docs and I haven't touched VW since.
Mainly because Squeak is a toy. That was more true in 3.6 time and that does not mean I don't use RB, Shout, eCompletion today.
Cheers,
Herbert mailto:herbertkoenig@gmx.net
squeak-dev@lists.squeakfoundation.org
-
Alan Kay -
Benoit St-Jean -
Bert Freudenberg -
Cédrick Béler -
Damien Cassou -
Edgar J. De Cleene -
Germán Arduino -
Herbert König -
J J -
Juan Vuletich -
Lord ZealoN -
Matthew Fulmer -
Sebastian Sastre -
stephane ducasse -
tim Rowledge -
Trygve Reenskaug -
Yann Monclair -
Yoshiki Ohshima