[Seaside] Design of WAComponent(s)

Sebastian Sastre ssastre at seaswork.com
Thu Mar 6 18:07:48 UTC 2008

> -----Mensaje original-----
> De: seaside-bounces at lists.squeakfoundation.org 
> [mailto:seaside-bounces at lists.squeakfoundation.org] En nombre 
> de Ramon Leon
> Enviado el: Jueves, 06 de Marzo de 2008 14:20
> Para: 'Seaside - general discussion'
> Asunto: RE: [Seaside] Design of WAComponent(s)
> > No offense please but some answers show a lack of 
> > appreciation for the users of Seaside. If you want to grow 
> > the users base of Seaside, you need to answer the question of 
> > Microsoft. If you dont, it will remain a great tool from 
> > specialists for specialists. And fade in oblivion eventually.
> Why?  Emacs and Vi do pretty well as editors without catering 
> to newbies,
> why the assumption that building tools for experienced programmers is
> somehow fatal?  Seaside is a framework, not a component library.
You mean the point is Seaside must apply as a Vi kind of tool? One of the things
I'm happy to use ubuntu (with NXServer) is not to need vi anymore to fill my
expensive cerebral RAM with exotic key combinations (used once a while) of
software not designed to respect basic design principles not to mention human
beings heuristics.
I hope Seaside NEVER take a path which make it comparable to that kind of
software. I mean never ever to the end of time

I'm sure you know technology should be meant to deconstruction of the barriers
of dominating things (machines) to do the human's will and not to build new
barriers or keep them. Doing that reveals the developer's established statu quo
of that epoch which IMHO is nothing more than a small mediocre thought none here
should have (among other things because how Smalltalk has born).

> > > I do not have the skills and time of lukas to create 
> > widgets from scratch.
> > > But I imagine that I should be able to reuse them.
> > 
> > Chapeau! That *IS* the main point. Those non-specialist that 
> > might be attracted to Seaside and Smalltalk are very likely 
> > not fluent in the details of XHTML, Java-script and AJAX. 
> > Asking them to create new components from the given examples 
> > will end in bad copy&paste programming.
> How does that have anything to do with whether the core 
> should or shouldn't
> include generic components?  No one is saying reusable 
> components are bad,
> look at ShoreComponents, that is how generic components 
> should be done, as
> separate packages that don't bloat the core framework.  It'd 
> be great to
> have a wide variety of component options, no one disputes 
> that, they just
> don't belong in the core framework. 
This very important. None is questioning what the core of Seaside has to be made
of. I'm happy with the taken path for 2.9. In any case Seaside must care for the
interest of the better preserve and mature the good platform it is. 
The things we create *on* it are just talking about the richness it provides.
Something good can grow from it beacouse is a solid fundation.



> BTW, anyone not fluent in the details of XHTML, Javascript 
> and AJAX isn't
> going to make it very far in *any* web framework.  If you 
> want to develop
> web applications, these things are pretty much required 
> learning.  Seaside
> may let you write XHTML, Javascript, and Ajaxy stuff in 
> Smalltalk syntax,
> but you still have to understand them to make effective use of those
> abstractions.  There's no getting around that.
> Ramon Leon
> http://onsmalltalk.com

More information about the seaside mailing list