Re: newbie stuff

On Jan 30, 2007, at 14:31 , David Urquhart wrote:

> Firstly thanks for the tips I received on how to browse code in  
> Squeak.
>
> Secondly a suggestion - when introducing beginners, a reduced list  
> (but effective set) of classes and methods would make learning  
> easier because the structure of the system would be more apparent  
> and there would be less 'noise'.  A metaphor would be teaching an  
> alien how to live on earth - you might start by showing them how to  
> live in a village, then once they knew how to go from house to  
> house and shop etc, you might take them to a town where they can  
> learn to use a library and catch the bus.  Finally they might take  
> those ideas to the city just like once I know smalltalk and squeak  
> better I will be able to make use of all these classes and  
> methods.  So for instance you might only offer me one type of  
> morph, one type of canvas, one openInBlah etc.  So maybe this would  
> be a switch in the browser to hide/show classes and methods of  
> secondary/extended/intermediate/progressed kind.

Doesn't exist for Squeak I think. There was a project called  
LearningWorks based on VisualWorks Smalltalk (or was it ObjectWorks  
back then?) which presented a partial view of the system.

The closest Squeak match would be Stef's BotsInc: http:// 
smallwiki.unibe.ch/botsinc/

> Some questions:
>
> Does Squeak follow a 3-button mouse approach to human interface?   
> Is there a plan to surrender that initial idea - I think 2-button  
> is becoming an assumed thing these days irrespective of whether you  
> use Windows, Linux, Mac or something else.  How would Squeak have  
> to change if it moved to a 2 button model?

Not at all as far as I'm concerned, it works fine with 1, 2, or 3  
button mice. What would *you* like to change?

> I'm trying to create a Morphic class that contains a subMorph  
> called internalCircle that is fitted to the bounds of its square  
> parent.  Ideally I could then move the parent around and the child  
> would move with it.  What's the best way to do this?  I want them  
> to be Morphs because I want them to be both visual and encapsulate  
> (different) behaviour of an 'experiment' and a sub component of  
> that experiment.

Well, "best" depends on your goal. You can do that interactively  
without a line of coding if you want. Just drop the attached file  
into your image and choose "load as morph".

> I'm hearing references to 'scripting' in Squeak or the toy thing  
> that's related.  What is it and do I need to learn about it if I'm  
> doing Squeak application development?

For app development it is not "necessary". But it may be enlightening  
nontheless, as it is the original design goal of Squeak. Many Morphic  
design decisions are based on this, that's why it is quite different  
from a legacy UI toolkit. See

        http://www.squeakland.org/whatis/whatismain.html

- Bert -

RectCirc.morph
Description: Binary data

_______________________________________________
Beginners mailing list
Beginners@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
http://lists.squeakfoundation.org/mailman/listinfo/beginners