[Seaside] Seaside vs. Traditional

Rob Rothwell r.j.rothwell at gmail.com
Sat Mar 29 17:47:59 UTC 2008

On Sat, Mar 29, 2008 at 1:30 PM, Randal L. Schwartz <merlyn at stonehenge.com>

> Ahh.  You're still living in the illusion that the Web is WYSIWYG.  It
> isn't.
> Different browsers render things different ways.  How will your app act on
> a
> browser that's twice as wide?  Half as wide?

But do I have to know about that?  Can't we create "meta-properties" that
describe what we want the layout to be like under those circumstances, that
are themselves built into the framework?  Isn't that the type of useful
abstraction Smalltalk is good at?  You've already abstracted HTML...why not
CSS as well?  You know..."I want this component to grow to fit the page," or
"I want that button to just remain that size."

I'm not talking about rewriting CSS in Smalltalk, just making COMMON tasks
more accessible.

But, I'm probably still missing the point...boy, those 8 years in the Army
sure left me out of the loop...

Properly designed web applications are *not* done using Photoshop.  They're
> constructed using sound design principles, to adapt to their environment.

So is there a way to...make that "easier" for mere mortals trying to throw a
useful tool together for business users and use the web as a platform to
avoid installation headaches and make use of the "liveliness" of Smalltalk?

I still just think it's all about the interface to the components, not the
components themselves if you REALLY want to attract a crowd.

What I like about what you are saying is the "Model View Design" separation
it would give you.  It's just that the "Model View" portion is hard enough
for me...let along getting a handle on the "Design" portion as well!

I WANT to do the right thing!  I just want it to be easier!

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: http://lists.squeakfoundation.org/pipermail/seaside/attachments/20080329/51bfcebc/attachment.htm

More information about the seaside mailing list