<br><br><div class="gmail_quote">On Jan 23, 2008 8:09 PM, Juan Vuletich <<a href="mailto:juan@jvuletich.org">juan@jvuletich.org</a>> wrote:<br><blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="border-left: 1px solid rgb(204, 204, 204); margin: 0pt 0pt 0pt 0.8ex; padding-left: 1ex;">
<div class="Ih2E3d">Hi Jason,<br><br>Jason Johnson wrote:<br></div><div class="Ih2E3d">> On Jan 23, 2008 12:42 AM, Juan Vuletich <<a href="mailto:juan@jvuletich.org">juan@jvuletich.org</a>> wrote:<br>><br>>
<br></div><div class="Ih2E3d">> You're the one who said Morphic isn't for the "average programmer". :)<br>><br></div>Well, I said "I'm not doing Morphic 3 to suit the average programmer<br>
needs". That doesn't mean that Morphic isn't for the average programmer.<br>It means that my objectives are not finding out what are the needs of<br>the average programmer. I really don't know what they are. And I don't
<br>care too much.</blockquote><div>To be clear I fully respect your free time and choices so if none of
this matters to you it's fine by me. I just think that when you say you
are working on Morphic 3.0 with the implication that it is the future
of the Squeak GUI you're inviting input. <br> <br>There are a lot of "average programmers" who are very bright and motivated people that happen to have other full time professions. What they want are a set of rock-solid components they can use out of the box to code basic interfaces -
<a href="http://www.ddj.com/184408550?pgno=3#011f_0005">the list of Widgets/V components</a>, though 17 years old isn't far off the mark. The GUI builder in Widgets/V left a lot to be desired - which is how/why it evolved into WindowBuilder, but the components opened a new world of possibilities for "average programmers". None of the current Squeak GUIs - Morphic, E-Toys or Tweak provide these rock-solid components out of the box, but it seems like Morphic
3.0 could as a matter of course. I like many of the ideas in Morphic 3.0 and don't see having a set of practical, core components as being in conflict with them. In fact, I think they are complimentary in many respects - they provide excellent test suites and broaden the base of testers which always helps any GUI.
<br><br>Cheers,<br>Laurence<br><br><br><br><br></div><blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="border-left: 1px solid rgb(204, 204, 204); margin: 0pt 0pt 0pt 0.8ex; padding-left: 1ex;"><br><div class="Ih2E3d">><br>>>
<a href="http://www.jvuletich.org/Squeak/IntroductionToMorphic/Morphic.html" target="_blank">http://www.jvuletich.org/Squeak/IntroductionToMorphic/Morphic.html</a> .<br>>><br>><br>> Best link I've seen yet. Thanks, I'm going through it.
<br>><br></div>Thanks!<br><div class="Ih2E3d">><br>>> Then pay more attention.<br>>><br>><br>> Oh I do. I read every message I see about Morphic on the list, trying<br>> to see what it's "kill feature" is.
<br>><br>><br></div>Quoted alone, my phrase sounds rude. I apologize. I meant that Squeak<br>itself is a great place to study and learn. I don't think the point is<br>about a "kill feature". I think it is about flexibility and openness.
<br>I've never used C#, or anything but Smalltalk in the last 10 years, but<br>I don't believe something like EnvelopeEditorMorph could be done with so<br>little and simple code. Anyway, I might be wrong. If C# is so good, then
<br>why not use it? If its GUI framework and tools are that good, why not<br>port them to Squeak?<br><div class="Ih2E3d">> I looked at that class and I saw a Morph containing a piano, a view on<br>> a musical scale and a few menus. If I get time I may take a crack at
<br>> it in the C# or Dolphin environment because it seemed pretty straight<br>> forward (and one always learns why it isn't in implementation :).<br>><br></div>It also has actual envelopes you can grab with the mouse to modify the
<br>sound. If you can do something like that in C# or Dolphin, with as<br>little code as in Morphic, please tell me, and let me see the code.<br><div class="Ih2E3d">><br>>> Well, I helped write an application that way in 1997 using VisualAge
<br>>> Smalltalk (now VA Smalltalk). Also VisualWorks and Visual Smalltalk<br>>> supported or still support that way of programming. In my experience,<br>>> and that of many others, code is much better at tackling real complex
<br>>> applications and at building a mainteinable system.<br>>><br>><br>> Well, is that because it is the best way to do it, or because the<br>> tools don't help us constructing the interfaces enough?
<br></div>I don't know, but if you have hope on "visual programming" I suggest<br>using Parts in VisualWorks, or the VisualBuilder in VisualAge, write an<br>application (without code, only arrows connecting objects), maintain it
<br>(i.e. modify it and keep it working) and find out for yourself if a<br>better tool could make that way of programming useful.<br><div class="Ih2E3d">> Of course<br>> building applications via code must be supported, but in a system
<br>> built in itself like Smalltalk, of course it will be. I watched the<br>> Self video and they seemed to be building some pretty interesting and<br>> complicated things in a largely graphical way.<br>><br>
><br>>> I believe the whole<br>>> "visual programming" idea failed for professional developers.<br>>><br>><br>> That's a rather bold statement. It depends again on how you're going
<br>> to define "professional developers" but if you define them as people<br>> who get paid to program then I suspect that the vast majority of all<br>> developers writing native GUIs are doing so in a mostly graphical
<br>> manner and have been for decades.<br>><br></div>Decades? The first visual programming tools commercially available are<br>about 15 years old. And most people build guis with gui builders, but<br>almost nobody use visual programming tools. May be we are not speaking
<br>about the same, visual programming means defining the application<br>behavior without code (not only the GUI, the model too). I say this idea<br>failed, because (almost) nobody uses it, and tool vendors don't sell it
<br>as the future anymore.<br><div class="Ih2E3d">><br>><br>>> I don't think why would you think that. I really believe you need more<br>>> reading and studying Squeak.<br>>><br>><br>> Mainly because having read the tutorials and papers on Self and
<br>> Morphic from Sun's research web site, it seemed that Morphic gained a<br>> lot of power from the object instance modification capabilities.<br>> Since Smalltalk is a class based system you lose much of that (
e.g.<br>> adding a method ad-hoc to a morph you're working on). The way one has<br>> to do it in Smalltalk is by programatically generating classes, which<br>> I dislike. In Etoys, one programs at a higher level so it doesn't
<br>> matter so much how things are implemented at the lower levels you<br>> don't see, but at the Smalltalk level it doesn't strike me as very<br>> elegant.<br>><br></div>I see. However, I don't agree. I think programming in Smalltalk by
<br>defining classes is both powerful and elegant.<br><div class="Ih2E3d">> And I'm sure you're right that I do need to read more. Squeak is<br>> quite vast with a great deal to learn.<br>><br>><br></div>
:)<br><br>Cheers,<br><font color="#888888">Juan Vuletich<br><br><br></font></blockquote></div><br>