Morphic 3 presentation at Smalltalks 2007

> Hi folks,
>
> On Dec 10^th to Dec 12^th we had Smalltalks 2007, the first Smalltalk
> conference in Buenos Aires, Argentina. There I gave a talk and demo of
> Morphic 3. You can read more, get the updated Morphic 3 Squeak image,
> and even see a video of my talk at www.jvuletich.org
>
> I hope you like it!
>
> Cheers,
> Juan Vuletich

> Hi folks,
>
> On Dec 10^th to Dec 12^th we had Smalltalks 2007, the first  
> Smalltalk conference in Buenos Aires, Argentina. There I gave a talk  
> and demo of Morphic 3. You can read more, get the updated Morphic 3  
> Squeak image, and even see a video of my talk at www.jvuletich.org
>
> I hope you like it!
>
> Cheers,
> Juan Vuletich
>

> Can you talk about Morphic 3 in relation to Tweak?
> I don't know much about this but it seems that another group is
> building a successor to Morphic that purports to be a best of both
> worlds (from MVC and Morphic). I'm just curious to know more.
>
>
> On Dec 23, 2007, at 7:04 AM, Juan Vuletich wrote:
>
>> Hi folks,
>>
>> On Dec 10^th to Dec 12^th we had Smalltalks 2007, the first Smalltalk
>> conference in Buenos Aires, Argentina. There I gave a talk and demo
>> of Morphic 3. You can read more, get the updated Morphic 3 Squeak
>> image, and even see a video of my talk at www.jvuletich.org
>>
>> I hope you like it!
>>
>> Cheers,
>> Juan Vuletich
>>
>
>

> On Jan 22, 2008 3:51 AM, Juan Vuletich <[hidden email]> wrote:
>  
>> Hi Randy,
>>
>> Tweak doesn't address my concerns, especially about non linear
>> coordinate systems.
>>    
>
> But I think the state-of-the-art system should be good for Gurus and
> average programmers as well.  That is, it should be really good at
> pumping out the average GUI that usually gets made.
>
> For most programmers, a non-linear coordinate system is totally
> irrelevant.  What will Morphic 3 have that makes it fast and effective
> for developing GUI's?  Sad to say, but so far the best system I have
> seen for letting one build a GUI "directly" is probably C#.
>
>
>  

>> If you still believe the world needs another GUI builder, I see two
>> ways.
>>    
>
> It does because the existing ones are not good enough.  But how do you
> envision graphical applications being created?  By writing code that
> generates them?  How can we claim to have an advanced system when even
> C (!!!!!) had more efficient mechanisms years ago?
>
>  

>  
>> Well, I helped write an application that way in 1997 using VisualAge
>> Smalltalk (now VA Smalltalk). Also VisualWorks and Visual Smalltalk
>> supported or still support that way of programming. In my experience,
>> and that of many others, code is much better at tackling real complex
>> applications and at building a mainteinable system.
>>    
>
> Well, is that because it is the best way to do it, or because the
> tools don't help us constructing the interfaces enough?

> Of course
> building applications via code must be supported, but in a system
> built in itself like Smalltalk, of course it will be.  I watched the
> Self video and they seemed to be building some pretty interesting and
> complicated things in a largely graphical way.
>
>  
>> I believe the whole
>> "visual programming" idea failed for professional developers.
>>    
>
> That's a rather bold statement.  It depends again on how you're going
> to define "professional developers" but if you define them as people
> who get paid to program then I suspect that the vast majority of all
> developers writing native GUIs are doing so in a mostly graphical
> manner and have been for decades.
>  

>
>  
>> I don't think why would you think that. I really believe you need more
>> reading and studying Squeak.
>>    
>
> Mainly because having read the tutorials and papers on Self and
> Morphic from Sun's research web site, it seemed that Morphic gained a
> lot of power from the object instance modification capabilities.
> Since Smalltalk is a class based system you lose much of that (e.g.
> adding a method ad-hoc to a morph you're working on).  The way one has
> to do it in Smalltalk is by programatically generating classes, which
> I dislike.  In Etoys, one programs at a higher level so it doesn't
> matter so much how things are implemented at the lower levels you
> don't see, but at the Smalltalk level it doesn't strike me as very
> elegant.
>  

>
>
> On Jan 23, 2008 8:09 PM, Juan Vuletich <[hidden email]> wrote:
> Hi Jason,
>
> Jason Johnson wrote:
> > On Jan 23, 2008 12:42 AM, Juan Vuletich <[hidden email]> wrote:
> >
> >
> > You're the one who said Morphic isn't for the "average  
> programmer". :)
> >
> Well, I said "I'm not doing Morphic 3 to suit the average programmer
> needs". That doesn't mean that Morphic isn't for the average  
> programmer.
> It means that my objectives are not finding out what are the needs of
> the average programmer. I really don't know what they are. And I don't
> care too much.
> 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.
>
> 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 - the list of Widgets/V  
> components, 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.
>
> Cheers,
> Laurence
>
>
>
>
>
> >
> >> http://www.jvuletich.org/Squeak/IntroductionToMorphic/ 
> Morphic.html .
> >>
> >
> > Best link I've seen yet.  Thanks, I'm going through it.
> >
> Thanks!
> >
> >> Then pay more attention.
> >>
> >
> > Oh I do.  I read every message I see about Morphic on the list,  
> trying
> > to see what it's "kill feature" is.
> >
> >
> Quoted alone, my phrase sounds rude. I apologize. I meant that Squeak
> itself is a great place to study and learn. I don't think the point is
> about a "kill feature". I think it is about flexibility and openness.
> I've never used C#, or anything but Smalltalk in the last 10 years,  
> but
> I don't believe something like EnvelopeEditorMorph could be done  
> with so
> little and simple code. Anyway, I might be wrong. If C# is so good,  
> then
> why not use it? If its GUI framework and tools are that good, why not
> port them to Squeak?
> > I looked at that class and I saw a Morph containing a piano, a  
> view on
> > a musical scale and a few menus. If I get time I may take a crack at
> > it in the C# or Dolphin environment because it seemed pretty  
> straight
> > forward (and one always learns why it isn't in implementation :).
> >
> It also has actual envelopes you can grab with the mouse to modify the
> sound. If you can do something like that in C# or Dolphin, with as
> little code as in Morphic, please tell me, and let me see the code.
> >
> >> Well, I helped write an application that way in 1997 using  
> VisualAge
> >> Smalltalk (now VA Smalltalk). Also VisualWorks and Visual Smalltalk
> >> supported or still support that way of programming. In my  
> experience,
> >> and that of many others, code is much better at tackling real  
> complex
> >> applications and at building a mainteinable system.
> >>
> >
> > Well, is that because it is the best way to do it, or because the
> > tools don't help us constructing the interfaces enough?
> I don't know, but if you have hope on "visual programming" I suggest
> using Parts in VisualWorks, or the VisualBuilder in VisualAge, write  
> an
> application (without code, only arrows connecting objects), maintain  
> it
> (i.e. modify it and keep it working) and find out for yourself if a
> better tool could make that way of programming useful.
> > Of course
> > building applications via code must be supported, but in a system
> > built in itself like Smalltalk, of course it will be.  I watched the
> > Self video and they seemed to be building some pretty interesting  
> and
> > complicated things in a largely graphical way.
> >
> >
> >> I believe the whole
> >> "visual programming" idea failed for professional developers.
> >>
> >
> > That's a rather bold statement.  It depends again on how you're  
> going
> > to define "professional developers" but if you define them as people
> > who get paid to program then I suspect that the vast majority of all
> > developers writing native GUIs are doing so in a mostly graphical
> > manner and have been for decades.
> >
> Decades? The first visual programming tools commercially available are
> about 15 years old. And most people build guis with gui builders, but
> almost nobody use visual programming tools. May be we are not speaking
> about the same, visual programming means defining the application
> behavior without code (not only the GUI, the model too). I say this  
> idea
> failed, because (almost) nobody uses it, and tool vendors don't sell  
> it
> as the future anymore.
> >
> >
> >> I don't think why would you think that. I really believe you need  
> more
> >> reading and studying Squeak.
> >>
> >
> > Mainly because having read the tutorials and papers on Self and
> > Morphic from Sun's research web site, it seemed that Morphic  
> gained a
> > lot of power from the object instance modification capabilities.
> > Since Smalltalk is a class based system you lose much of that ( e.g.
> > adding a method ad-hoc to a morph you're working on).  The way one  
> has
> > to do it in Smalltalk is by programatically generating classes,  
> which
> > I dislike.  In Etoys, one programs at a higher level so it doesn't
> > matter so much how things are implemented at the lower levels you
> > don't see, but at the Smalltalk level it doesn't strike me as very
> > elegant.
> >
> I see. However, I don't agree. I think programming in Smalltalk by
> defining classes is both powerful and elegant.
> > And I'm sure you're right that I do need to read more.  Squeak is
> > quite vast with a great deal to learn.
> >
> >
> :)
>
> Cheers,
> Juan Vuletich
>
>
>
>

>
>
> On Jan 23, 2008 8:09 PM, Juan Vuletich <[hidden email]> wrote:
> Hi Jason,
>
> Jason Johnson wrote:
> > On Jan 23, 2008 12:42 AM, Juan Vuletich <[hidden email]> wrote:
> >
> >
> > You're the one who said Morphic isn't for the "average  
> programmer". :)
> >
> Well, I said "I'm not doing Morphic 3 to suit the average programmer
> needs". That doesn't mean that Morphic isn't for the average  
> programmer.
> It means that my objectives are not finding out what are the needs of
> the average programmer. I really don't know what they are. And I don't
> care too much.
> 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.
>
> 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 - the list of Widgets/V  
> components, 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.
>
> Cheers,
> Laurence
>
>
>
>
>
> >
> >> http://www.jvuletich.org/Squeak/IntroductionToMorphic/ 
> Morphic.html .
> >>
> >
> > Best link I've seen yet.  Thanks, I'm going through it.
> >
> Thanks!
> >
> >> Then pay more attention.
> >>
> >
> > Oh I do.  I read every message I see about Morphic on the list,  
> trying
> > to see what it's "kill feature" is.
> >
> >
> Quoted alone, my phrase sounds rude. I apologize. I meant that Squeak
> itself is a great place to study and learn. I don't think the point is
> about a "kill feature". I think it is about flexibility and openness.
> I've never used C#, or anything but Smalltalk in the last 10 years,  
> but
> I don't believe something like EnvelopeEditorMorph could be done  
> with so
> little and simple code. Anyway, I might be wrong. If C# is so good,  
> then
> why not use it? If its GUI framework and tools are that good, why not
> port them to Squeak?
> > I looked at that class and I saw a Morph containing a piano, a  
> view on
> > a musical scale and a few menus. If I get time I may take a crack at
> > it in the C# or Dolphin environment because it seemed pretty  
> straight
> > forward (and one always learns why it isn't in implementation :).
> >
> It also has actual envelopes you can grab with the mouse to modify the
> sound. If you can do something like that in C# or Dolphin, with as
> little code as in Morphic, please tell me, and let me see the code.
> >
> >> Well, I helped write an application that way in 1997 using  
> VisualAge
> >> Smalltalk (now VA Smalltalk). Also VisualWorks and Visual Smalltalk
> >> supported or still support that way of programming. In my  
> experience,
> >> and that of many others, code is much better at tackling real  
> complex
> >> applications and at building a mainteinable system.
> >>
> >
> > Well, is that because it is the best way to do it, or because the
> > tools don't help us constructing the interfaces enough?
> I don't know, but if you have hope on "visual programming" I suggest
> using Parts in VisualWorks, or the VisualBuilder in VisualAge, write  
> an
> application (without code, only arrows connecting objects), maintain  
> it
> (i.e. modify it and keep it working) and find out for yourself if a
> better tool could make that way of programming useful.
> > Of course
> > building applications via code must be supported, but in a system
> > built in itself like Smalltalk, of course it will be.  I watched the
> > Self video and they seemed to be building some pretty interesting  
> and
> > complicated things in a largely graphical way.
> >
> >
> >> I believe the whole
> >> "visual programming" idea failed for professional developers.
> >>
> >
> > That's a rather bold statement.  It depends again on how you're  
> going
> > to define "professional developers" but if you define them as people
> > who get paid to program then I suspect that the vast majority of all
> > developers writing native GUIs are doing so in a mostly graphical
> > manner and have been for decades.
> >
> Decades? The first visual programming tools commercially available are
> about 15 years old. And most people build guis with gui builders, but
> almost nobody use visual programming tools. May be we are not speaking
> about the same, visual programming means defining the application
> behavior without code (not only the GUI, the model too). I say this  
> idea
> failed, because (almost) nobody uses it, and tool vendors don't sell  
> it
> as the future anymore.
> >
> >
> >> I don't think why would you think that. I really believe you need  
> more
> >> reading and studying Squeak.
> >>
> >
> > Mainly because having read the tutorials and papers on Self and
> > Morphic from Sun's research web site, it seemed that Morphic  
> gained a
> > lot of power from the object instance modification capabilities.
> > Since Smalltalk is a class based system you lose much of that ( e.g.
> > adding a method ad-hoc to a morph you're working on).  The way one  
> has
> > to do it in Smalltalk is by programatically generating classes,  
> which
> > I dislike.  In Etoys, one programs at a higher level so it doesn't
> > matter so much how things are implemented at the lower levels you
> > don't see, but at the Smalltalk level it doesn't strike me as very
> > elegant.
> >
> I see. However, I don't agree. I think programming in Smalltalk by
> defining classes is both powerful and elegant.
> > And I'm sure you're right that I do need to read more.  Squeak is
> > quite vast with a great deal to learn.
> >
> >
> :)
>
> Cheers,
> Juan Vuletich
>
>
>
>

>
>
> 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.
>  
> 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 - the list of Widgets/V components
> <http://www.ddj.com/184408550?pgno=3#011f_0005>, 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.
>
> Cheers,
> Laurence
>

>
> As Paul Graham said "a lot of the
> best ones were languages designed for their own authors to use, and a
> lot of the worst ones were designed for other people to use." [1].
> And this idea holds for designing systems as well no doubt.  My point
> was just that one also must balance this with practicality.  Make it
> for yourself, but make it so *you* can do real world common things
> with it as well as anything your mind can imagine.
>
>  

>  
>> It also has actual envelopes you can grab with the mouse to modify the
>> sound.
>>    
>
> But the chart-like morph is a stand alone morph that views on an
> envelope using a variation of the standard MVC, no?  In this case, I
> would expect it to behave exactly the same, though it will obviously
> be more lines of code in C#.  But the hard part is in defining the
> Envelope viewer, not in putting it on the form or wiring it up.
>
>  

> On Jan 24, 2008 10:29 AM, Juan Vuletich <[hidden email]> wrote:
>  
>> What I don't have in my current plans is to work on a
>> GUI builder.
>>    
>
> Well, I guess I understand more about Morphic now.  I was expecting
> some big "wow!" with it like I had with the rest of Smalltalk, but it
> seems like it is a GUI system that the "designer" is part of the
> display medium itself (world) instead of a separate application.
>
>