another reason Rails gets market share and Seaside doesn't

Hey, all:

        I think we're not debating the same thing, necessarily.

        Seaside should not be =gratuitously= complex. Smalltalk is an easy  
language to learn. Seaside doesn't need to be any more difficult than it  
needs to be to get the job done. I think these are sufficiently obvious  
platitudes to avoid controversy.

        I don't see why Seaside isn't for beginners, even raw beginners. HTML is  
simpler to grasp (and more limited, of course) than morphic. It's just a  
matter of presenting the right amount of information in the right order.

        Now, someone who's entrenched in other languages and frameworks--they're  
more likely to suffer than a raw beginner.

        ===Blake===


On Wed, 18 Jul 2007 09:59:27 -0700, Richard Eng <[hidden email]>  
wrote:
_______________________________________________
Seaside mailing list
[hidden email]
http://lists.squeakfoundation.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/seaside

On Wed, 18 Jul 2007 13:21:02 -0700, Richard Eng <[hidden email]>  
wrote:

> With all due respect (and I *do* respect you enormously!), Smalltalk is a
> great language with which to learn OOP. I was briefly introduced to C#  
> and I didn't like it. Smalltalk is so much more elegant. You shouldn't  
> have to be an OOP expert before using Smalltalk.

C# was virtually intuitive to me as someone who has used Delphi for years.  
It's really ugly.

The incredible complexity that having a static typing system introduces to  
a language--well, these days I don't see that there's much benefit to it.

If I didn't make it clear before, I agree that "accessible <> dumbed down".
_______________________________________________
Seaside mailing list
[hidden email]
http://lists.squeakfoundation.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/seaside

> With all due respect (and I *do* respect you enormously!),
> Smalltalk is a great language with which to learn OOP. I was
> briefly introduced to C# and I didn't like it. Smalltalk is
> so much more elegant. You shouldn't have to be an OOP expert
> before using Smalltalk.

Thanks, and I agree, let me rephrase what I was trying to say...

If you don't prefer the OO approach, Smalltalk really isn't the language you
want to be in.

I was saying that because Seaside is heavily object oriented, as is Magritte
and Pier, and you won't be able to use them effectively unless you
understand object oriented code.  Few beginners do.

> You are not understanding me correctly. You should not dumb
> down a framework for beginners. Seaside *ought* to be a power
> tool. All I'm saying is, lower the entry barrier--minimize
> the learning curve--with accurate, up-to-date tutorials based
> on non-trivial, full-fledged web applications. Provide great
> documentation. *Streamline* the learning curve for beginners
> (even beginners who have years of Java experience).

OK, then we agree.

> >From what I've seen of Seaside so far, there is no reason whatsoever
> >its
> power can't be made more accessible to the "masses."

I can name one, Smalltalk.  Seaside can't be accessible to the masses
because Smalltalk isn't accessible to the masses because it's *different*.
The masses don't like different.  The masses want files and text editors and
svn or cvs.  The masses don't want to change, Smalltalk requires change,
instant conflict.  

Using Seaside requires two giant changes, adopting Smalltalk and adopting an
entirely different approach to web development.  As Smalltalk is 30+ years
old and hasn't been adopted by the masses, I don't see Seaside doing it.
What's more likely to happen is that Seaside will be influential and other
languages will copy (as best they can) Seaside's approach, just like after
Rails everyone started adopting ActiveRecord (despite the fact that
ActiveRecord was an old well known pattern long before Rails).

> I certainly do not share this view. There's nothing wrong
> with being a niche player, but I have greater hopes for Seaside.

I do hope the community grows, but I don't want to see it turn into a fad
like Rails where the bandwagon jumps aboard.  Smaller communities are more
focused and fun.

OK, that all sounds great, we're in agreement.

Ramon Leon
http://onsmalltalk.com

_______________________________________________
Seaside mailing list
[hidden email]
http://lists.squeakfoundation.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/seaside

On 7/18/07 4:47 PM, "Ramon Leon" <[hidden email]> wrote:

I fear that you are right. However, I will not give up hope!

It is very hard to sell Smalltalk/Squeak on its own. So don't. Sell Seaside,
instead! Strategically, Smalltalk never previously had the advantage of
something like Seaside. So now we have a secret weapon.

And let's not forget Croquet (Ubuntu's Mark Shuttleworth has been singing
its praises, recently)...


>> I certainly do not share this view. There's nothing wrong
>> with being a niche player, but I have greater hopes for Seaside.
>
> I do hope the community grows, but I don't want to see it turn into a fad
> like Rails where the bandwagon jumps aboard.  Smaller communities are more
> focused and fun.

Agreed. Seaside should not be a fad. Smaller communities are generally more
focused but big communities *can* be fun. Take the Ubuntu Linux community,
for example. It really depends on the people who "drive" the community. I
think Seaside has a great bunch in people like Ramon, Avi, Lukas, etc.

So don't be afraid to grow!

Regards,
Richard


_______________________________________________
Seaside mailing list
[hidden email]
http://lists.squeakfoundation.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/seaside

On 7/18/07 4:47 PM, "Ramon Leon" <[hidden email]> wrote:

> Using Seaside requires two giant changes, adopting Smalltalk and adopting an
> entirely different approach to web development.  As Smalltalk is 30+ years
> old and hasn't been adopted by the masses, I don't see Seaside doing it.

As someone who has been writing software for over 20 years, I am quite
baffled by my colleagues' attitude when it comes to adopting new languages
and methods. I like playing with toys, so I welcome the opportunity to try
new tools. This has been the foundational principle of my long career.

(I'm currently engaged in a long-running argument with a former colleague
who is now a C++ fanboy!)

As I've never done web development before, I have no vested interest in
sticking with what I know. But even if that weren't true, I am open-minded
enough to investigate new ways of doing things. I can't understand why
others don't feel the same way.

(My C++ fanboy friend refuses to give Seaside/Smalltalk a spin.)

When I first looked at Squeak, I was a little intimidated. But it didn't
take long for me to get used to it. I don't mind at all that I'm not dealing
with source files. It's a different way of doing things and it has its own
benefits. What's the big deal?

Ditto for Seaside. So it's not the conventional way of doing things. Why
should that be a stumbling block? In fact, it's an *easier* way of doing
things!

People are lazy. People don't know how to have fun. They stick with the
familiar. If you've been programming in C++ or Java for 10 years, how can
you still be having fun writing software? The answer is: You can't! Neither
of those languages is fun.

Regards,
Richard


_______________________________________________
Seaside mailing list
[hidden email]
http://lists.squeakfoundation.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/seaside

> As someone who has been writing software for over 20 years, I am quite
> baffled by my colleagues' attitude when it comes to adopting new languages
> and methods. I like playing with toys, so I welcome the opportunity to try
> new tools. This has been the foundational principle of my long career.
>

I find those attitudes strange myself.  While I've been mainly a C++
developer for 12 years (with a short break for Java), I try other
languages regularly (python, ruby, and now smalltalk).  I find it
quite exciting to dip my toe in a new language.  Sadly the new
language can sometimes make me a little grumpy about C++.

I'm still astonished that more people don't use Smalltalk.  I tried
looking into it 10 years ago but the compiler price scared me off.
I'm very glad the world is different now.


> When I first looked at Squeak, I was a little intimidated. But it didn't
> take long for me to get used to it. I don't mind at all that I'm not dealing
> with source files. It's a different way of doing things and it has its own
> benefits. What's the big deal?
>

Exactly.  It really isn't that much different.  But then I've often
used different IDEs so I never got attached to Emacs, vi, etc.

My only complaints with Squeak are some of the appearance, some
difficulty finding documentation on what I'm interested in doing, and
a little nagging practicality that asks "can I get a job doing this?".

> Ditto for Seaside. So it's not the conventional way of doing things. Why
> should that be a stumbling block? In fact, it's an *easier* way of doing
> things!
>

Seaside certainly looks more OO than other web development frameworks.

> People are lazy. People don't know how to have fun. They stick with the
> familiar. If you've been programming in C++ or Java for 10 years, how can
> you still be having fun writing software? The answer is: You can't! Neither
> of those languages is fun.
>

Amen, not much fun at all.  Here is to finding more fun work in the
future or at least writing an app in Seaside.

--Robert
_______________________________________________
Seaside mailing list
[hidden email]
http://lists.squeakfoundation.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/seaside

> As someone who has been writing software for over 20 years, I
> am quite baffled by my colleagues' attitude when it comes to
> adopting new languages and methods. I like playing with toys,
> so I welcome the opportunity to try new tools. This has been
> the foundational principle of my long career.

Same here.

> (I'm currently engaged in a long-running argument with a
> former colleague who is now a C++ fanboy!)
>
> As I've never done web development before, I have no vested
> interest in sticking with what I know. But even if that
> weren't true, I am open-minded enough to investigate new ways
> of doing things. I can't understand why others don't feel the
> same way.

Ditto.

> (My C++ fanboy friend refuses to give Seaside/Smalltalk a spin.)

Big surprise.

Sound like you're the Smalltalk type.

Ramon Leon
http://onsmalltalk.com

_______________________________________________
Seaside mailing list
[hidden email]
http://lists.squeakfoundation.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/seaside

On Wed, July 18, 2007 4:32 pm, Richard Eng wrote:

> As someone who has been writing software for over 20 years, I am quite
> baffled by my colleagues' attitude when it comes to adopting new languages
> and methods. I like playing with toys, so I welcome the opportunity to try
> new tools. This has been the foundational principle of my long career.

While I don't generally talk 'shop' to others at work about different
languages to try and whatnot, I generally find that most people I work with
know C/C++ and Perl.. I don't think I've ever heard any of them talk about
trying out other languages.. FWIW..

> (I'm currently engaged in a long-running argument with a former colleague
> who is now a C++ fanboy!)

I used to be a C++ fanboy, but the spots have worn off and I'm now a
Smalltalk fanboy!  I've been using C++ in embedded environments and also
commercial software for ~10 years and have been doing C for another 8-10
on top of that.. I remember those ickly 'cfront' days for C++.. Eww..

> As I've never done web development before, I have no vested interest in
> sticking with what I know. But even if that weren't true, I am open-minded
> enough to investigate new ways of doing things. I can't understand why
> others don't feel the same way.

I'm always interested in finding a better way to do things.. Shoot, I
switched from PHP to Smalltalk+Seaside, but most people aren't interested
in change.. (please refer to the "Who Moved My Cheese" book for info on why
"change" is good.. (8->

> (My C++ fanboy friend refuses to give Seaside/Smalltalk a spin.)

Doesn't surprise me one bit..

> People are lazy. People don't know how to have fun. They stick with the
> familiar. If you've been programming in C++ or Java for 10 years, how can
> you still be having fun writing software? The answer is: You can't!
> Neither
> of those languages is fun.

I agree 100%!

_______________________________________________
Seaside mailing list
[hidden email]
http://lists.squeakfoundation.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/seaside

Ramon Leon wrote:
> Maybe not, but if you aren't pretty good with OO, Smalltalk really isn't the
> language you want to be in.
>  

I have agreed with most of what you have said, but this I strongly
disagree with.  If you don't know OO (and want to learn) then Smalltalk
is *exactly* what you need to learn.  We shouldn't tell people that if
they want to learn OO they need to go to mainstream languages with bad
OO implementations (e.g. Java, C++, etc.).  
http://learningtotalk.blogspot.com is a good blog where a game designer
documents getting into Smalltalk and all the OO "knowledge" he had to
unlearn.  People who want to learn OO should start out right here with
the best and most obvious OO language.

> I have to disagree, if I shared those aspirations, I'd use Rails.  Seaside
> is targeting a different market than Rails, and it's doing pretty well as
> is.  The community only needs to be large enough to ensure its survival, it
> hardly needs to conquer the world.  Bringing a framework to the *masses*
> would involve dumbing it down, something I'd rather not see.
>  

In this part I am torn.  Part of me knows that Smalltalk/Seaside
*deserves* to be the most used language out there.  But the other part
of me realizes if that ever happened, then about the only opportunies we
as software developers would have would be joining some huge company and
churning out boring code.  I would much rather have my own business, and
having a language that is much faster to develop in then what everyone
else is using creates that possibility.  So that part of me hopes people
continue developing in Java. :)
_______________________________________________
Seaside mailing list
[hidden email]
http://lists.squeakfoundation.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/seaside

Yea, this describes me pretty well as well (except cut those years in
half :) ).  I never understood the big fear in learning new languages,
or using them in your company.  Besides; it's a good way to weed out the
kind of people you don't want to hire anyway (i.e. if a person can't get
proficient in a new programming language in a reasonable amount of time
they probably don't code well in the few languages they do know).

I was a big C++ guy, but only because it seemed to be the most powerful
(i.e. allowed me to "extend" the language) I had used.  Once Seaside
drew me into Smalltalk and I found I could have even more power but with
out the insane level of complexity I have never looked back.  And the
interactive way of programming certainly feels very productive and
rewarding (and fun :) ).


Richard Eng wrote:
_______________________________________________
Seaside mailing list
[hidden email]
http://lists.squeakfoundation.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/seaside

> I disagree that you wouldn't want to do Smalltalk if you don't know
> OO. Smalltalk is a great first OO language (taught lots on the job).
> If anything, Smalltalk is distasteful to others who've used other
> languages and maybe never really got objects (seen it over and over
> teaching OO to people who've learned it on their own).
I'm (was ;) ) a beginner/newcommer/journeyer... Before using smalltalk,
I had only basic notions of some languages as html/http... Smalltalk is
great to learn object and OO... I've learned a lot since but mastering
is another problem...You quickly realize that object modelization is not
simple even if often said to be a natural, simple way of thinking...
"Write once and only once" has a implicit wrong meaning of simplicity...
It's more a question of beauty, easy maintenance but not coding easiness...
>
> If you like PHP or Rails or servlets, that's cool too. It's just
> different.
Sometimes, I do some php, it's fun because rewarding even if the final
code smells... you can quickly copy/paste/adapt hundreds of lines ;) ...
Problem of smalltalk is that adding an extra functionnalities, or
wrinting a fix is often one of two lines of code and that's not
encouraging/rewarding for newcomers especially if you spend 2 hours
"writing" it...

Finding the reward is hard in smalltalk, but I think I've reach the
point I've too much *fun* doing some smalltalk...I'm not being objective
anymore ;).

What's fun in other languages are the results you get, and in smalltalk
it's the environment and the result... but first you need to understand
and be at ease with the environment.

Cédrick

_______________________________________________
Seaside mailing list
[hidden email]
http://lists.squeakfoundation.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/seaside

I haven't really been following this thread but this caught my attention.

> From: Jason Johnson
>
> I never understood the big fear in learning new languages,
> or using them in your company.  Besides; it's a good way to weed out the
> kind of people you don't want to hire anyway (i.e. if a person can't get
> proficient in a new programming language in a reasonable amount of time
> they probably don't code well in the few languages they do know).

I've made this argument a number of times: The number of available
programmers for language X does not relate to the number of highly qualified
programmers.  I used this argument mostly to support using Smalltalk over
Java. The argument I always got back was that it does change the amount of
money needed to hire those people, it decreases the risk to the project, and
simplifies your support profile.  (Not to mention the guys at Bain and Co.
knew how to asses the risk of Java and couldn't really understand the risks
of Smalltalk enough to write up a complete audit for investors)

I've never really been able to counter those arguments and I've experienced
some of the downside.  I had a programmer that was just gaa gaa over
Borland's Delphi.  He really believed that it was the best possible gui
development platform out there and really wanted me to let him build an
application with it.  I relented and as you can probably guess we needed to
support that application after he moved on.  You are right that we were able
to support the application because of the quality of the developers, but
even small changes required a large amount of tinkering and learning that
would not have been necessary had I stuck to my guns and said no.

Ron Teitelbaum
President / Principal Software Engineer
US Medical Record Specialists
www.USMedRec.com

_______________________________________________
Seaside mailing list
[hidden email]
http://lists.squeakfoundation.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/seaside

On Fri, 20 Jul 2007 08:19:56 -0700, Ron Teitelbaum <[hidden email]>  
wrote:

> I've never really been able to counter those arguments and I've  
> experienced some of the downside.  I had a programmer that was just gaa  
> gaa over
> Borland's Delphi.  He really believed that it was the best possible gui
> development platform out there and really wanted me to let him build an
> application with it.

I'd say best available, depending on when, and as long as you're limited  
to Windows development, and concerned with a number of other issues Delphi  
handles very well.

> I relented and as you can probably guess we needed to support that  
> application after he moved on.  You are right that we were able to  
> support the application because of the quality of the developers, but
> even small changes required a large amount of tinkering and learning that
> would not have been necessary had I stuck to my guns and said no.

Ah, but how do you measure that against the additional time it would've  
taken for him to build the app using [some other tool]?

As one of the original Delphi users (beta tester and author for V1), it  
was intersting for me last year to find a company that had built an  
incredible application on it which showed exactly where the whole thing  
fell apart. These were smart guys who were using all the up-to-date design  
technologies they could leverage using Delphi, and yet as I looked at all  
the gyrations they had to go through, it became clear to me that none of  
these acrobatics would be necessary in Smalltalk.

On the other hand, no Smalltalk could have produced the UI that set them  
apart from their competitors without them also going into many unrelated  
businesses (like producing graphing components). Another thing they relied  
on was being able to perform zillions of calculations live based on the  
user's mouse drag (which caused the UI to redraw itself based on the new  
parameters). Java couldn't do it; I don't think there's a Smalltalk that  
could either.
_______________________________________________
Seaside mailing list
[hidden email]
http://lists.squeakfoundation.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/seaside

On 21/07/07, Blake <[hidden email]> wrote:
Yes this what i called a 'parasitic' business. By swimming near
sharks, small companies providing numerous addons, enhancements e.t.c.
for the need of developers.
Each of these candies costs some $$$ and provided in binary form.
Alas, we cannot make same with squeak, because everything is open
source from the beginning, and even bytecodes can be easily
decompiled.
So, squeak will never become a shark under which body parasites can
hide and eat leftovers from shark's dinner.
And i'm pretty happy with it :)
Programmers must stop selling same ideas again and again, just in new
packing. This is not progress , this is parasitism on consumers
market.
_______________________________________________
Seaside mailing list
[hidden email]
http://lists.squeakfoundation.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/seaside

On Fri, 20 Jul 2007 15:57:20 -0700, sig <[hidden email]> wrote:

They're not selling the same ideas, they're selling the considerable  
effort it takes to implement those ideas.

We could use a few more "parasites" in Squeak.
_______________________________________________
Seaside mailing list
[hidden email]
http://lists.squeakfoundation.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/seaside

On 21/07/07, Blake <[hidden email]> wrote: Yeah! You right!
Just an examle from my life: i bought a keyboard with power/sleep keys
placed right above cursor keys, after i turned my PC sleep/shutdown 3
times in a hour i started to search a way, how to disable them in
windoze. And i found it!
A GREAT keyboard utility, which must stay resident in memory and totally Free.
I downloaded it and installed, then i found that for disabling
power/sleep keys i need to pay them a $$ ...
- A considerable effort needed to design keyboard with such idiotic keys layout
- A considerable effort needed to design an OS, which don't have key
filtering features
- A considerable effort needed to implement key filtering and sell it :)

> We could use a few more "parasites" in Squeak.
> _______________________________________________
> Seaside mailing list
> [hidden email]
> http://lists.squeakfoundation.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/seaside
>
_______________________________________________
Seaside mailing list
[hidden email]
http://lists.squeakfoundation.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/seaside

1. If it's not a considerable effort, build your own damn keyboard utility.

2. Doing things badly is in many cases no cheaper than doing it well.

3. Building a full-featured graphing suite or grid component is not a  
trivial task. If you find it to be such, please build the following  
components for Squeak:

http://www.steema.com/
http://www.devexpress.com/Products/VCL/ExQuantumGrid/Index.xml

The latter actually contains considerable graphing capabilities, so you  
can get a good return for your efforts.

4. The people I have worked for who built end user software products--I  
don't know if they fall into your "parasite" category, but as they were in  
medical industries, helping scientists do things like track down cures for  
cancer--could not have existed without some way to be paid for their  
efforts. A great deal of useful, socially constructive, and certainly  
=fun= software would not exist without the chance for compensation, and  
the world would be a much poorer place.

5. It took me five seconds to find a freeware program to remap keys on the  
Windows keyboard:

http://webpages.charter.net/krumsick/

Might even work.
_______________________________________________
Seaside mailing list
[hidden email]
http://lists.squeakfoundation.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/seaside

Ron Teitelbaum wrote:
> I've made this argument a number of times: The number of available
> programmers for language X does not relate to the number of highly qualified
> programmers.  I used this argument mostly to support using Smalltalk over
> Java. The argument I always got back was that it does change the amount of
> money needed to hire those people, it decreases the risk to the project, and
> simplifies your support profile.  (Not to mention the guys at Bain and Co.
> knew how to asses the risk of Java and couldn't really understand the risks
> of Smalltalk enough to write up a complete audit for investors)
>  

Yea, I get those arguments as well at my large company.  And we are
using the worst technologies available in all categories.  But as I
mentioned before, while being frustrated with it at work, taking 3 times
(or more with some of our crappier technologies) to do everything, on my
train ride home I'm quite happy about the thought of some day competing
with companies that are in this same boat. :)

I understand what you're saying, but I don't see this as a cut-n-dry
"well, we should have stuck with Java" thing.  If the technology was
good, why didn't any of the other developers jump on board with their
projects?  I don't believe every developer should be able to use a new
language for every project.  But I do think those that stop changing
have started dying. :)
_______________________________________________
Seaside mailing list
[hidden email]
http://lists.squeakfoundation.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/seaside

On 21/07/07, Blake <[hidden email]> wrote: Even if you done things badly, you must give users a way to easily fix
that. In most unix-es changing keys layout is just reading a short doc
and editing a text file. You don't even need to learn any computer
language to make this. Compare given efforts with those, which windows
users need for such trivial tasks.

Simply compare this:
http://support.microsoft.com/kb/302092
and this:
http://www.linux.com/articles/113715

Yes, i agree with what you say, but just tell me, how many topics you
seen like 'my Win-XP-like controls, for <...>', is this a good way to
bring something new and shiny to society, but don't leave others a way
how to reuse it, and forcing those numerous 'XP-like' controls suites
appear for different languages/dev tools which targeted to run on
windows XP anyways.

_______________________________________________
Seaside mailing list
[hidden email]
http://lists.squeakfoundation.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/seaside

On Sat, 21 Jul 2007 01:48:11 -0700, sig <[hidden email]> wrote:

> Even if you done things badly, you must give users a way to easily fix
> that. In most unix-es changing keys layout is just reading a short doc
> and editing a text file. You don't even need to learn any computer
> language to make this. Compare given efforts with those, which windows
> users need for such trivial tasks.

Apparently, you don't, as Microsoft demonstrates repeatedly. You can do  
whatever the hell you want when you have a captive audience. (I'm not  
arguing that Windows is a model here, except perhaps in trying to maintain  
that captive audience through coercion rather than persuasion. I actually  
don't se how Windows is particularly relevant to a discussion on the  
merits of third party software except, I guess, that it's crapitude  
encourages 3rd party software, right up to the point where MS swallows the  
3rd party.)

> Simply compare this:
> http://support.microsoft.com/kb/302092
> and this:
> http://www.linux.com/articles/113715

Don't need to. I found a solution in five minutes that didn't involve me  
reading at all. Illiteracy (and laziness) will out!

> Yes, i agree with what you say, but just tell me, how many topics you
> seen like 'my Win-XP-like controls, for <...>', is this a good way to
> bring something new and shiny to society, but don't leave others a way
> how to reuse it, and forcing those numerous 'XP-like' controls suites
> appear for different languages/dev tools which targeted to run on
> windows XP anyways.

Actually, both those links include source code with purchase, at least  
optionally.

And it has nothing to do with being "XP-like". The simple fact is, those  
components encapsulate a whole lot of technology that I don't have to  
program if I use Delphi, that I =do= have to program if I want to use  
Squeak.

The breadth (and occasionally, the depth) of Squeak's third party support  
is astounding, frankly. It says a lot about the joy of working with it.

But grids and graphs aren't going anywhere. They're easy to understand and  
use. And the two companies I pointed out are just two of =dozens= that  
supply those sorts of things for the relatively minor development  
environment that is Delphi. And Delphi comes with both grids AND graphs  
=free=.

It's all very well to be disdainful of people trying to make a living in  
niche markets, but that don't put the budget graph in front of the CFO.

Anyway, I think we've gotten way afield here.
_______________________________________________
Seaside mailing list
[hidden email]
http://lists.squeakfoundation.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/seaside