Dolphin ST compared with Squeak - some advice please

> Hi,
>
> I keep turning some thoughts in my head over and over and I'd need some
> input on them.
>
> The thing is I started programming with webapps in PHP, doing that for
> some years and making quit a nice living.
> After a while I got tired of it for two reasons basically
>
> first, there is only so much you can do with PHP and HTML
> second, its just about impossible to write generic WebApps.
>
> So I went for writing Desktop Apps, trying Scheme, Lisp and finally
> Smalltalk, and with Smalltalk I'll stay. (Avoiding C and C++ like hell).
>
> Since I'm going for Windows users, and because a few other reasons,
> Dolphin seems like the best choice.
>
> ... so far.
>
>
> Cause what I'd also like to do is write Apps with a more or less trivial
> business logic but with a real fancy UI.
> A UI for instance, that looks like some good Flash Apps look like, or
> one that you'd see in Science Fiction movies, a really cool one.
> I admit it, any app of mine is hardly ever gonna be some great piece of
> software, but I'll be damned if it will look as boring as the others.
>
> Dolphin seems really great when you want to create an App with a
> standard Windows UI, very nice set up for you. But what if you'd want
> something else?
> I reckon I'd have to go very deep into Dolphin, probably to the same
> level as the developers and I doubt that I will ever be able to.
>
> So I'd like your opinion on Morphs, Squeaks UI.
>
> Would that maybe be a better choice for me?
>
> Guenther

> Hello Gunther.
>
> After reading your post and the answers, I think that if you can add some
> comments on the type of UI you have in mind, you will get more accurate
> estimates on the effort you will have to put there. It probably may vary a
> lot depending on if it is a regular themed windows interface, a MorphicWorld
> or a 3D Croquet like UI.
>
> If you only want some look and feel differences, as in winamp, for instance,
> then I think you can totally do it in dolphin.
> If the differences are functional, then I just can not tell.
>
> I also have the feeling that many programmers have already done some sort of
> "not quite so regular windows" UI, or that sooner or later they will. I
> don't know why, I find Dolphin UI much better (in terms of ease of use) than
> many fancy UI I can find around there, but bosses and clients seem to not
> share the thought. In that case, it would be nice to have some kind of UI
> goodies to help programmers to get there, or at least to use them as a "how
> to" repository.
> I have the intention to eventually upload somewhere some UI goodies of my
> own, but for now I could send you some of what I have done (by no means it
> will be the correct or better way to do this things) so you can see if its
> somewhere near your needs.
>
> Best regards.
> Martin
>
> "Günther Schmidt" <[hidden email]> escribió en el mensaje
> news:42016480$[hidden email]...
>
>>Hi,
>>
>>I keep turning some thoughts in my head over and over and I'd need some
>>input on them.
>>
>>The thing is I started programming with webapps in PHP, doing that for
>>some years and making quit a nice living.
>>After a while I got tired of it for two reasons basically
>>
>>first, there is only so much you can do with PHP and HTML
>>second, its just about impossible to write generic WebApps.
>>
>>So I went for writing Desktop Apps, trying Scheme, Lisp and finally
>>Smalltalk, and with Smalltalk I'll stay. (Avoiding C and C++ like hell).
>>
>>Since I'm going for Windows users, and because a few other reasons,
>>Dolphin seems like the best choice.
>>
>>... so far.
>>
>>
>>Cause what I'd also like to do is write Apps with a more or less trivial
>>business logic but with a real fancy UI.
>>A UI for instance, that looks like some good Flash Apps look like, or
>>one that you'd see in Science Fiction movies, a really cool one.
>>I admit it, any app of mine is hardly ever gonna be some great piece of
>>software, but I'll be damned if it will look as boring as the others.
>>
>>Dolphin seems really great when you want to create an App with a
>>standard Windows UI, very nice set up for you. But what if you'd want
>>something else?
>>I reckon I'd have to go very deep into Dolphin, probably to the same
>>level as the developers and I doubt that I will ever be able to.
>>
>>So I'd like your opinion on Morphs, Squeaks UI.
>>
>>Would that maybe be a better choice for me?
>>
>>Guenther
>
>
>

> Günther,
>
>> Dolphin seems really great when you want to create an App with a
>> standard Windows UI, very nice set up for you. But what if you'd want
>> something else?
>> I reckon I'd have to go very deep into Dolphin, probably to the same
>> level as the developers and I doubt that I will ever be able to.
>
>
> In that case, I suggest you not attempt to go off on your own in user
> interface design.  More below.
>
>
>> So I'd like your opinion on Morphs, Squeaks UI.
>>
>> Would that maybe be a better choice for me?
>
>
> I do a lot with emulated user interface elements, but it is motivated by
> performance constraints.

> interface just for its own sake, then you have a lot of work ahead of
> you.  FWIW, I notice a lot of Windows based software that seeks to
> distinguish itself by appearance, and it invariably does not work very
> well.  I think the best way to help your users is to spend your time
> thinking about exactly what does and does not belong on context menus,
> menu bar and buttons that are in plain view, etc.
>
> You can, of course, generate your own graphics; some things are best
> displayed graphically.  From recent threads, you can find that I favor
> using a visitor-like object whose job it is to draw on a canvas.  Once
> debugged, you can use it to create a custom view  or simply to fill an
> image presenter.  Look at the Moen Tree for an example of the speed and
> robustness that you can achieve.
>
> Squeak's licensing and portability make it worth watching.  Morphic has
> some strengths (its buffered redraw is quite good, and it is reasonably
> friendly toward incremental development, at least as far as I've tried
> it).  The big problem in Squeak's user interface is that its feel is
> awful.  Don't overlook that in your evaluation.  I am not saying that
> Squeak cannot be used for real software, but you will have a fair amount
> to do to make it agreeable to your users.
>
> Have a good one,
>
> Bill
>
>

> Bill Schwab schrieb:
> > Günther,
> >
> >> Dolphin seems really great when you want to create an App with a
> >> standard Windows UI, very nice set up for you. But what if you'd want
> >> something else?
> >> I reckon I'd have to go very deep into Dolphin, probably to the same
> >> level as the developers and I doubt that I will ever be able to.
> >
> >
> > In that case, I suggest you not attempt to go off on your own in user
> > interface design.  More below.
> >
> >
> >> So I'd like your opinion on Morphs, Squeaks UI.
> >>
> >> Would that maybe be a better choice for me?
> >
> >
> > I do a lot with emulated user interface elements, but it is motivated by
> > performance constraints.
>
> Bill,
>
> some time ago I read something about "emulated widgets", I think on the
> object-arts website, but I can't find it anymore.
> Could you elaborate on "emulated widgets" or if you've put it online
> somewhere point me towards it?
>
> Günther
>
> (I hope you read this)
>
>   If you are interested in creating a different
> > interface just for its own sake, then you have a lot of work ahead of
> > you.  FWIW, I notice a lot of Windows based software that seeks to
> > distinguish itself by appearance, and it invariably does not work very
> > well.  I think the best way to help your users is to spend your time
> > thinking about exactly what does and does not belong on context menus,
> > menu bar and buttons that are in plain view, etc.
> >
> > You can, of course, generate your own graphics; some things are best
> > displayed graphically.  From recent threads, you can find that I favor
> > using a visitor-like object whose job it is to draw on a canvas.  Once
> > debugged, you can use it to create a custom view  or simply to fill an
> > image presenter.  Look at the Moen Tree for an example of the speed and
> > robustness that you can achieve.
> >
> > Squeak's licensing and portability make it worth watching.  Morphic has
> > some strengths (its buffered redraw is quite good, and it is reasonably
> > friendly toward incremental development, at least as far as I've tried
> > it).  The big problem in Squeak's user interface is that its feel is
> > awful.  Don't overlook that in your evaluation.  I am not saying that
> > Squeak cannot be used for real software, but you will have a fair amount
> > to do to make it agreeable to your users.
> >
> > Have a good one,
> >
> > Bill
> >
> >