Esteban A. Maringolo wrote > I don't see the > advantage of Morphic/Custom drawn UI over traditional widgets, even > HTML widgets.
>From an "IDE for business apps" perspective, there may be little. But I only find "Pharo is a better IDE" moderately interesting. The blue plane idea is that Pharo is a Dynabook implementation. Here uniformity, liveness, and directness make all the difference in the world *. For example, as a brand new Smalltalker, I hated that the dialog window for adding a new directory repo in the MC Browser always started in a standard directory. Since I always use the same root repo folder, this required extra work for me to navigate there every time. But how to start implementing this? Morphic provided the answer... to my dreams! Instead of asking on the list, hunting around the system code for a hook, or reading through documentation, like I would in almost any other system *I was able to do the same thing I would do to understand a physical object in the real world*!! I "took apart" the +Repository button and figured out how it worked by bringing up the halos, inspecting the model, and the button action was revealed for understanding and modification. As important as it is to find "what Pharo is good for" in the pink plane, I have certainly not invested so much time, energy, and emotion for incremental improvement, and would find a system without beautiful blue plane ideas like Morphic (or a successor that sticks to its principles) much less interesting. * My concern with Spec is that huge layers of symbol interpretation logic subvert these properties ----- Cheers, Sean -- View this message in context: http://forum.world.st/The-Dilemma-Building-a-Futuristic-GUI-for-Ephestos-tp4777811p4778651.html Sent from the Pharo Smalltalk Developers mailing list archive at Nabble.com.
