-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- Hash: SHA1
I'm trying to understand Morphic and why it is so wonderfull (and how to build real applications with it)... but so far, I failed. I come from the Qt/KDE world, where I built interfaces with a GUI builder, called Designer, where I placed buttons, text boxes and anything else into a window (widget) and layed it out with a dynamic system. It seems morphic has the same dynamic system. I also happened to have the concept of actions, a program have actions and the items in the menus are some graphical representation of those actions, and the toolbars other representations. But Morphic doesn't seem to have the concept of menubars nor toolbars... am I wrong ? - From my point of view Morphic seems very powerfull to do very weird things, nice things but weird... am I wrong ? I mean, you can have nice things done with text in curves and so on, but most applications don't use that. Another thing that I don't like about Morphic is that it doesn't 'impose' a set of standards so the programs end up being very different one to each other, colores, arrangements, buttons, etc, etc. My intention is not to be critic, but to understand, can you please, help me understand ? Thanks. - -- Pupeno: pupeno@pupeno.com - http://www.pupeno.com
http://minnow.cc.gatech.edu/squeak/ Search the swiki for morphic tutorials.
Pupeno wrote:
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- Hash: SHA1
I'm trying to understand Morphic and why it is so wonderfull (and how to build real applications with it)... but so far, I failed. I come from the Qt/KDE world, where I built interfaces with a GUI builder, called Designer, where I placed buttons, text boxes and anything else into a window (widget) and layed it out with a dynamic system. It seems morphic has the same dynamic system. I also happened to have the concept of actions, a program have actions and the items in the menus are some graphical representation of those actions, and the toolbars other representations. But Morphic doesn't seem to have the concept of menubars nor toolbars... am I wrong ?
I don't think there are any specific menubar widget in morphic.
- From my point of view Morphic seems very powerfull to do very weird things,
nice things but weird... am I wrong ? I mean, you can have nice things done with text in curves and so on, but most applications don't use that. Another thing that I don't like about Morphic is that it doesn't 'impose' a set of standards so the programs end up being very different one to each other, colores, arrangements, buttons, etc, etc.
I miss that sometimes, some guidelines would be nice.
My intention is not to be critic, but to understand, can you please, help me understand
There are several projects that try to bring some familiar looking widgets to morphic, look at the swiki.
Karl
Hi Pupeno! On Sun, 1 Aug 2004, Pupeno wrote:
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- Hash: SHA1
Morphic doesn't seem to have the concept of menubars nor toolbars... am I wrong ?
In the Morphic "world" menu are context-based. For example, in the squeak browser you do not (really) see menu bars.
Toolbars are also missed. Flaps are similar to toolbars: they hold "prototipes" of object ready to be used.
- From my point of view Morphic seems very powerfull to do very weird things,
nice things but weird... am I wrong ? I mean, you can have nice things done with text in curves and so on, but most applications don't use that.
Yes and no... With Morphic you can do "simple" and "ordinal" things, but morphic is not GTK (or Qt) in sense it is born under Self from a different approach.
Squeak UI is a bit different in respect of MS-Window/Motif
Another thing that I don't like about Morphic is that it doesn't 'impose' a set of standards so the programs end up being very different one to each other, colores, arrangements, buttons, etc, etc.
As far as I know, there aren't much standard as in Gnome. But you get a list of capabilities from subclassing a Morph (for example they can be roteted, clipped inside a window and manipulated in some standard ways!).
My intention is not to be critic, but to understand, can you please, help me understand ?
I have done similar throughts: Morphic is different from standard UI you see in X11/Windows.
It is a more "interactive world", giving you more space to work with: no menu bars, windows with different color to identificate them faster, etoys to manipulate objects and so on... Bye bye :)
Hi
I think that you got morphic right. :) Too big, too complex, too much stuff and too much experimental stuff ....
too bad because this would have been cool. Now I hope that we will get another better UI framework but if this is not Tweak I do not see something happening. (I was used to use VW and its UIbuilder :))
Now this does not mean that we cannot do things with it. Have a look at the BreakOut Game on SqueakMap. You can also look at the Zurgle look which is impressive. and connectorMorph because this is really good.
So I think that your evaluation is right but you should pass over the first impression (the second) The first this is cool, the second, it sucks, the third is let us do something with it.
Stef
On 1 août 04, at 08:36, Pupeno wrote:
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- Hash: SHA1
I'm trying to understand Morphic and why it is so wonderfull (and how to build real applications with it)... but so far, I failed. I come from the Qt/KDE world, where I built interfaces with a GUI builder, called Designer, where I placed buttons, text boxes and anything else into a window (widget) and layed it out with a dynamic system. It seems morphic has the same dynamic system. I also happened to have the concept of actions, a program have actions and the items in the menus are some graphical representation of those actions, and the toolbars other representations. But Morphic doesn't seem to have the concept of menubars nor toolbars... am I wrong ?
- From my point of view Morphic seems very powerfull to do very weird
things, nice things but weird... am I wrong ? I mean, you can have nice things done with text in curves and so on, but most applications don't use that. Another thing that I don't like about Morphic is that it doesn't 'impose' a set of standards so the programs end up being very different one to each other, colores, arrangements, buttons, etc, etc. My intention is not to be critic, but to understand, can you please, help me understand ? Thanks.
Pupeno: pupeno@pupeno.com - http://www.pupeno.com -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- Version: GnuPG v1.2.4 (GNU/Linux)
iD8DBQFBDI92fW48a9PWGkURAtyXAJ9zB1mTbxFrVdYoiNKKaOreW2N2bQCfSQq6 ME3nDWQRS4IchPEvQYy+p9Y= =la/K -----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
stéphane ducasse wrote:
Hi
I think that you got morphic right. :) Too big, too complex, too much stuff and too much experimental stuff ....
too bad because this would have been cool. Now I hope that we will get another better UI framework but if this is not Tweak I do not see something happening.
(I was used to use VW and its UIbuilder :))
Some years ago I've used it for building applications. I've *never* seen a better GUI builder so far!
BTW: The advanced one, which I've made, has been a tool for applying image processing operations to images: there you could drag the *operation* over the argument(s) (that was at a time where the drag'n'drop features have been improved (or introduced at all?)). The mouse cursor has changed it appearance to show how many arguments are missing and the result has been shown in some result view.
Greetings Stephan
...
Greetings, José!
If I may paraphrase you a bit, Morphic is very powerful for doing unordinary things. The fact that "it doesn't 'impose' a set of standards" can indeed lead to situations where "programs end up being very different one to each other," but of course Morphic does not //require// that, it simply permits it. In some cases, and in some hands, that degree of freedom may be unnecessary, but it is never inherently undesirable.
The difference is akin to that between a set of rubber stamps and a box of crayons -- the stamping blocks make it easy to assemble words and phrases, ensuring readability and uniformity and guiding the user's imagination within certain limits, while the crayons give free reign to the imagination but leave the bulk of the responsibility for usefulness or presentability to the user.
If one is making signs the stamping blocks may be sufficient, but the crayons can be used for far more than just signs, and can lead to some rather striking signs as well.
All the best,
Gary
----- Original Message ----- From: "Pupeno" pupeno@pupeno.com To: squeak-dev@lists.squeakfoundation.org Sent: Sunday, August 01, 2004 2:36 AM Subject: Morphic, I still don't get it...
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- Hash: SHA1
I'm trying to understand Morphic and why it is so wonderfull (and how to build real applications with it)... but so far, I failed. I come from the Qt/KDE world, where I built interfaces with a GUI builder, called Designer, where I placed buttons, text boxes and anything else into a window (widget) and layed it out with a dynamic system. It seems morphic has the same dynamic system. I also happened to have the concept of actions, a program have actions and the items in the menus are some graphical representation of those actions, and the toolbars other representations. But Morphic doesn't seem to have the concept of menubars nor toolbars... am I wrong ? - From my point of view Morphic seems very powerfull to do very weird things, nice things but weird... am I wrong ? I mean, you can have nice things done with text in curves and so on, but most applications don't use that. Another thing that I don't like about Morphic is that it doesn't 'impose' a set of standards so the programs end up being very different one to each other, colores, arrangements, buttons, etc, etc. My intention is not to be critic, but to understand, can you please, help me understand ? Thanks. - -- Pupeno: pupeno@pupeno.com - http://www.pupeno.com
--- avast! Antivirus: Outbound message clean. Virus Database (VPS): 0431-3, 07/31/2004 Tested on: 8/2/04 7:55:04 AM avast! is copyright (c) 2000-2004 ALWIL Software. http://www.avast.com
This is an apt analogy - to take it a bit farther though - some of us really can't draw and need those rubber stamps. When viewed along with other kits the collection of stamps is rather odd and several common forms are missing.
On Aug 2, 2004, at 5:55 AM, Gary Fisher wrote:
Greetings, José!
If I may paraphrase you a bit, Morphic is very powerful for doing unordinary things. The fact that "it doesn't 'impose' a set of standards" can indeed lead to situations where "programs end up being very different one to each other," but of course Morphic does not //require// that, it simply permits it. In some cases, and in some hands, that degree of freedom may be unnecessary, but it is never inherently undesirable.
The difference is akin to that between a set of rubber stamps and a box of crayons -- the stamping blocks make it easy to assemble words and phrases, ensuring readability and uniformity and guiding the user's imagination within certain limits, while the crayons give free reign to the imagination but leave the bulk of the responsibility for usefulness or presentability to the user.
If one is making signs the stamping blocks may be sufficient, but the crayons can be used for far more than just signs, and can lead to some rather striking signs as well.
All the best,
Gary
----- Original Message ----- From: "Pupeno" pupeno@pupeno.com To: squeak-dev@lists.squeakfoundation.org Sent: Sunday, August 01, 2004 2:36 AM Subject: Morphic, I still don't get it...
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- Hash: SHA1
I'm trying to understand Morphic and why it is so wonderfull (and how to build real applications with it)... but so far, I failed. I come from the Qt/KDE world, where I built interfaces with a GUI builder, called Designer, where I placed buttons, text boxes and anything else into a window (widget) and layed it out with a dynamic system. It seems morphic has the same dynamic system. I also happened to have the concept of actions, a program have actions and the items in the menus are some graphical representation of those actions, and the toolbars other representations. But Morphic doesn't seem to have the concept of menubars nor toolbars... am I wrong ?
- From my point of view Morphic seems very powerfull to do very weird
things, nice things but weird... am I wrong ? I mean, you can have nice things done with text in curves and so on, but most applications don't use that. Another thing that I don't like about Morphic is that it doesn't 'impose' a set of standards so the programs end up being very different one to each other, colores, arrangements, buttons, etc, etc. My intention is not to be critic, but to understand, can you please, help me understand ? Thanks.
Pupeno: pupeno@pupeno.com - http://www.pupeno.com -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- Version: GnuPG v1.2.4 (GNU/Linux)
iD8DBQFBDI92fW48a9PWGkURAtyXAJ9zB1mTbxFrVdYoiNKKaOreW2N2bQCfSQq6 ME3nDWQRS4IchPEvQYy+p9Y= =la/K -----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
avast! Antivirus: Outbound message clean. Virus Database (VPS): 0431-3, 07/31/2004 Tested on: 8/2/04 7:55:04 AM avast! is copyright (c) 2000-2004 ALWIL Software. http://www.avast.com
squeak-dev@lists.squeakfoundation.org
-
Gary Fisher -
Giovanni Giorgi -
Karl Ramberg -
Pupeno -
Stephan Rudlof -
stéphane ducasse -
Todd Blanchard