Lyle Johnson wrote:
> I'm only marginally familiar with Smalltalk and Squeak, but have seen many
> references to Morphic. I've just walked through one of the first Morphic
> tutorials and it *seems* to be the kind of system I'm looking for. So my
> question, for those of you with more experience with Ruby, Squeak/Smalltalk
> and Morphic, is: is this a good API to try to bring over to Ruby? Or is
> Morphic a nice idea in theory but unwieldy to use in practice? Has anyone
> ever tried a Morphic-like library for Ruby on top of one of the other GUI
> toolkits (couldn't find any hits in the RAA or on google.com).
> 
> Thanks in advance for any thoughts on this...

It's slow, but if you can live with that it's an excellent OO API. 
Actually morphic did not originate with Smalltalk and Squeak, but with a
Prototype-based language called Self:
http://research.sun.com/research/self/release_4.1/release.html
Basically a pure OO language with no classes and slightly different
terminology than smalltalk, but a very similar syntax and workbench. 
You might want to go to the original source for more information on
morphic before you make any decisions.
HTH,

-- 
Alexander Schofield