[Seaside] Anybody see this?
boris at deepcovelabs.com
Wed Apr 8 17:39:54 UTC 2009
I guess where I can't relate to this is the part about tweaking the
design, because if you separate coding from design and have
professionals working in their own element on each, developers can focus
on functionality and designers can focus on design. Most usable web
applications don't just have input fields, lists and buttons. You can
tell I'm sceptical, but I'll be keeping an eye on things as they
develop. There's a long history of UI builders failing for many reasons
and we have yet to see one succeed.
DeepCove Labs Ltd.
4th floor 595 Howe Street
Vancouver, Canada V6C 2T5
boris at deepcovelabs.com
This email is intended only for the persons named in the message header.
Unless otherwise indicated, it contains information that is private and
confidential. If you have received it in error, please notify the sender
and delete the entire message including any attachments.
From: seaside-bounces at lists.squeakfoundation.org
[mailto:seaside-bounces at lists.squeakfoundation.org] On Behalf Of Eagle
Sent: Wednesday, April 08, 2009 10:32 AM
To: Seaside - general discussion
Subject: Re: [Seaside] Anybody see this?
Its funny but I'm hearing seasiders dismiss this technology using many
of the same arguments that non-seasiders use to dismiss seaside. You
sound exactly the same as your detractors.
There are multiple backends for capuccino - including php. PHP scales
like crazy. Not worried. It is not hard to imagine writing a single
data access handler to bridge database requests and forgetting about
it. There's a nice little minimal ActiveRecord for PHP I just used on
a prototype that kicks any database access technology I've used in
Squeak in simplicity, usability, and speed.
commercial product using that (http://280slides.com/), and now they're
using that to implement Interface Builder and XCode. They say it
works in all common browsers identically including IE6.
To me it looks very "turtles all the way down" but abstracts away the
whole web trash heap. For applications, not websites. I see a lot in
common with lively kernel. SproutCore looks nice but it is very much
a web technology.
As to the comment about the complex part of applications not being the
interface - on web apps I spend 95% of my time tweaking UI - fiddling
CSS rules usually or typing endless nestings of builder methods to
generate taggage to implement simple things. UI is all I do on the web.
Anyhow, their demo is better than any gui builder that has appeared
for squeak - morphic or web.
I'm not here to trash seaside - I think it rocks. But I find the
render/canvas extremely tiresome to work with because at the end of
the day its still building web noise and I think lively kernel/ html5
canvas and cappucino/atlas are hinting at a major shift and some deep
thinking and reexamination is in order. That's my point.
On Apr 8, 2009, at 7:57 AM, Sebastian Sastre wrote:
> It says nothing about how good is to build the application itself.
> Not to
> mention scaling complexity.
> So far I see no signal of that being better than a modern version of
> basic for the web.
On Apr 8, 2009, at 7:12 AM, Boris Popov wrote:
> a) any design choices beyond what they offer might be hard to
> b) the complex part of today's applications isn't the interface, it's
> whatever is behind it
seaside mailing list
seaside at lists.squeakfoundation.org
More information about the seaside