On Tue, Sep 16, 2014 at 2:55 PM, Chris Muller <ma.chris.m at gmail.com> wrote:

> >> On Tue, Sep 16, 2014 at 2:18 PM, Esteban A. Maringolo
> >> <emaringolo at gmail.com> wrote:
> >> > 2014-09-16 14:37 GMT-03:00 Sebastian Sastre
> >> > <sebastian at flowingconcept.com>:
> >> >
> >> >> Well, a while ago in the business list I’ve raised the idea that
> making
> >> >> Pharo able to do native OS windows would help it to gain market space
> >> >> (as in
> >> >> the opposite of staying at the margins of it).
> >> >>
> >> >> So, I’d be very positively curious about being able to use Pharo to
> do
> >> >> multiplatform native apps
> >> >
> >> > The trend is shifting to mobile devices, iOS and Android are eating
> >> > the whole market. So if it is about the potential market size, native
> >> > mobile (tablets/phones/TVs) should come as the first option, before
> >> > desktop.
> >>
> >> +1.  Desktop apps are "dead" aren't they?  I'm doubtful that native
> >> windows would help Smalltalk's popularity, as evidenced, I guess, by
> >> the fact VA and VW have supported them for a long time; did they take
> >> over the world yet?
> >>
> >> > For development, native windows could prove very useful.
> >>
> >> How so?  For me, one of the worst aspects of trying to develop in
> >> VisualAge or VisualWorks *is* the multiple host windows.  It makes it
> >> virtually impossible to work in more than one image, and reinforces
> >> the "grand cathedral" thinking about Smalltalk; e.g. you're not
> >> supposed to want or need anything outside your one, true, image.
> >> Dinosaur!
> >>
> >> I constantly work in multiple images, not only for separate projects
> >> but for the ability to quickly and easily fork images for multicore
> >> processing on the same project.  Other times simply to try something
> >> temporary and possibly dangerous.  The memory isolation is critical
> >> for productivity, the UI isolation for usability, and the multi-core
> >> capability for performance.
> >>
> >> I think we should focus on how to move to more and smaller
> >> intercommunicating images rather than one big image.  I understand its
> >> appeal for _deploying_ an off-the-shelf desktop app, but I'm not aware
> >> of any other use-cases where multiple host windows would be preferable
> >> to one host window per image.
> >
> >
> > That all makes sense from an experienced Smalltalker's POV.  But for
> people
> > exploring the technology the lack of native windows is usually a huge
> > turn-off and often reason to reject the technology.  The nice thing about
> > Vassili's work is that it allows one to have *both*, without losing
> window
> > state, and one can switch dynamically, and, IIRC, mix both, e.g. for
> > development.  So it isn't an exclusive choice.
>
> Ah, good.  Choice is good.  :)
>
> > Re VisualWorks' support for native windows it was an essential component
> to
> > VW staying in the market-place.  If it hadn't supported native windows it
> > would have died the commercial death long ago.  Pre-web, one /had/ to
> have
> > native windows for industry, and now with mobile native look and feel is
> > even more important.  Further, VWs huge lack in its GUI was lack of
> support
> > for native widgets.  We always used to tout MSWord's use of emulated
> widgets
> > (apparently for performance reasons) as a defence but it didn't convince.
> > The customer was always provided with poor emulations and a limited
> supply.
> > IMO, native widgets would have made a big difference in hwo
> well-received VW
> > was for GUI applications, where those using Windows could always turn to
> > VSE.
>
> Yes, I don't doubt that at all, especially during the time when
> Windows NT / XP was the defacto platform one could expect anywhere and
> everywhere.
>
> I am curious now, however, in this technologically-splintered world
> where Windows XP dying out, Windows 7 barely hanging on, everybody
> hating Windows 8, and the promise of cheap upgrade to Windows 9, Plus
> don't forget OSX widgets and then all the "widgets" people use on
> their phones and tablets being basically different from app to app:
> what IS "native" widgets these days?


Native widgets means simply use of the platforms native widget set in
constructing user interfaces.  I don't dsee different widgets across iOS
devices.  I see lots of consistency.


> I wonder what those manager
> folks who shunned the
> non-native-but-perfectly-usable-and-in-some-cases-better widgets are
> asking for now?   :)
>

I assume good looking applications using native widgets in the host
look-and-feel that follow the platform's style and usability guidelines.
 Thats a reasonable request.  Look at how coherent and well-engineered the
interface components in something like Apple's iOS is are and one soon
realises one the one hand the interface quality is high and on the other
that the only feasible way to construct interactive applications in that
context is to build it out of those widgets, not emulate, not provide an
alternative.  There are exceptions, e.g. parts of games where all one needs
is touch events and all imagery is custom.  But for stereotypical
interaction one surely has to use native widgets.

-- 
best,
Eliot
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: http://lists.squeakfoundation.org/pipermail/squeak-dev/attachments/20140917/a0ce6de2/attachment.htm