Morphic on HTML+CSS

Previous Topic Next Topic
 
classic Classic list List threaded Threaded
17 messages Options
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Morphic on HTML+CSS

Janko Mivšek
Hi all,

In light of recent Microsoft surprising U-turn announcement [1] that in
Windows 8 it swithes to HTML5 (HTML5+CSS+JavaScript) instead of .NET+WPF
and Silverlight for desktop app development it is IMO a right time to
think about:

1. is this a clear signal that HTML5 for ALL apps, both desktop and the
   web is inevitable?
2. is this a clear signal that we need to rebuild Morphic on top of
   HTML+CSS, to leverage all Morphic advantages and come back
   to bleeding edge again?

I think yes. What Squeak/Pharo/Cuis GUI masters say?

Best regards
Janko

[1]
http://arstechnica.com/microsoft/news/2011/06/html5-centric-windows-8-leaves-microsoft-developers-horrified.ars

--
Janko Mivšek
Aida/Web
Smalltalk Web Application Server
http://www.aidaweb.si

Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: Morphic on HTML+CSS

Kamil Tomsik
I am no squeak/pharo/cuis master,

but in my opinion the best approach is still "objects as servers"
  - no matter what html6 will be able to do, it won't be enough.

however html5+js means we can leverage ajax - and provide illusion
of objects as servers - and that's cool.

so:

1. yes
2. not sure, I'd rather spend energy on something different.


On Tue, 14 Jun 2011 13:41:45 +0200, Janko Mivšek <[hidden email]>  
wrote:

> Hi all,
>
> In light of recent Microsoft surprising U-turn announcement [1] that in
> Windows 8 it swithes to HTML5 (HTML5+CSS+JavaScript) instead of .NET+WPF
> and Silverlight for desktop app development it is IMO a right time to
> think about:
>
> 1. is this a clear signal that HTML5 for ALL apps, both desktop and the
>    web is inevitable?
> 2. is this a clear signal that we need to rebuild Morphic on top of
>    HTML+CSS, to leverage all Morphic advantages and come back
>    to bleeding edge again?
>
> I think yes. What Squeak/Pharo/Cuis GUI masters say?
>
> Best regards
> Janko
>
> [1]
> http://arstechnica.com/microsoft/news/2011/06/html5-centric-windows-8-leaves-microsoft-developers-horrified.ars
>


--
Using Opera's revolutionary email client: http://www.opera.com/mail/

Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: Morphic on HTML+CSS

Janko Mivšek
S, [hidden email] piše:

> I am no squeak/pharo/cuis master,
>
> but in my opinion the best approach is still "objects as servers"
>  - no matter what html6 will be able to do, it won't be enough.
>
> however html5+js means we can leverage ajax - and provide illusion
> of objects as servers - and that's cool.
>
> so:
>
> 1. yes
> 2. not sure, I'd rather spend energy on something different.

Remember that we the web guys are spending energy close to that goal for
quite a while already. The Iliad/Aida (bit less Seaside) component model
is close to what Morphic is, as far I know Morphic. And with Jtalk we
can cover JavaScript from Smalltalk code too.

Add the open-source and portable WebKit [1] based foundation like many
web browsers have and we are there! So, if we point ourselves to this
direction, for sure someone will come with a courage to experiment in
approximately this way:

- WebKit based foundation
- Iliad/Aida component model adopted to Morphic on top
- Jtalk for running JavaScript from Smalltalk
- Squeak/Pharo image with more or less unchanged tools

So, we switch one level higher in running Squeak/Pharo GUI: from bare
operating system's graphic/windowing support to WebKit based
HTML5/CSS/JavaScript one. With HTML5 Canvas and WebGL for HW optimized
graphics,...

Janko

[1] http://www.webkit.org/


> On Tue, 14 Jun 2011 13:41:45 +0200, Janko Mivšek
> <[hidden email]> wrote:
>
>> Hi all,
>>
>> In light of recent Microsoft surprising U-turn announcement [1] that in
>> Windows 8 it swithes to HTML5 (HTML5+CSS+JavaScript) instead of .NET+WPF
>> and Silverlight for desktop app development it is IMO a right time to
>> think about:
>>
>> 1. is this a clear signal that HTML5 for ALL apps, both desktop and the
>>    web is inevitable?
>> 2. is this a clear signal that we need to rebuild Morphic on top of
>>    HTML+CSS, to leverage all Morphic advantages and come back
>>    to bleeding edge again?
>>
>> I think yes. What Squeak/Pharo/Cuis GUI masters say?
>>
>> Best regards
>> Janko
>>
>> [1]
>> http://arstechnica.com/microsoft/news/2011/06/html5-centric-windows-8-leaves-microsoft-developers-horrified.ars
>>


--
Janko Mivšek
Aida/Web
Smalltalk Web Application Server
http://www.aidaweb.si

Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: Morphic on HTML+CSS

Bert Freudenberg
In reply to this post by Janko Mivšek

On 14.06.2011, at 04:41, Janko Mivšek wrote:

> Hi all,
>
> In light of recent Microsoft surprising U-turn announcement [1] that in
> Windows 8 it swithes to HTML5 (HTML5+CSS+JavaScript) instead of .NET+WPF
> and Silverlight for desktop app development it is IMO a right time to
> think about:
>
> 1. is this a clear signal that HTML5 for ALL apps, both desktop and the
>   web is inevitable?

Just as much as Java is inevitably the only choice for ALL apps, both desktop and the web.

> 2. is this a clear signal that we need to rebuild Morphic on top of
>   HTML+CSS, to leverage all Morphic advantages and come back
>   to bleeding edge again?

There already is Jens's Morphic.js:

        http://www.chirp.scratchr.org/blog/?p=34

And Lively Kernel is Morphic too, even more embodying the spirit of Squeak as a personal computing environment.

> I think yes. What Squeak/Pharo/Cuis GUI masters say?

Well, it would be great to see more of the good ideas in Squeak and its ancestors getting wider adoption. Seeing Morphic on the web is cool, but that's somewhat unrelated to Squeak.

Having style sheets in Squeak's Morphic would be cool too. The Sophie developers used style sheets for their Tweak UI. But I don't think HTML would be a good choice for Squeak's Morphic. Implementing a fully compliant HTML renderer is Hard, and I don't see the added complexity being worth it.

What would be nice though is pursuing the idea of alternative UI kits in Squeak - being able to unload and switch between Full Morphic / SimpleMorphic / Native / HTML interfaces, all backed by ToolBuilder seems very useful. For the HTML interface you could e.g. just add a WebKit plugin.

- Bert -



Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: Morphic on HTML+CSS

Colin Putney-3
In reply to this post by Janko Mivšek
2011/6/14 Janko Mivšek <[hidden email]>:

> In light of recent Microsoft surprising U-turn announcement [1] that in
> Windows 8 it swithes to HTML5 (HTML5+CSS+JavaScript) instead of .NET+WPF
> and Silverlight for desktop app development it is IMO a right time to
> think about:
>
> 1. is this a clear signal that HTML5 for ALL apps, both desktop and the
>   web is inevitable?

No. Apple isn't going that way, and Microsoft is just dipping its toe
in the water.

> 2. is this a clear signal that we need to rebuild Morphic on top of
>   HTML+CSS, to leverage all Morphic advantages and come back
>   to bleeding edge again?

Dan Ingalls has done it already: http://lively-kernel.org/

Colin

Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: Morphic on HTML+CSS

Colin Putney-3
In reply to this post by Bert Freudenberg
On Tue, Jun 14, 2011 at 9:27 AM, Bert Freudenberg <[hidden email]> wrote:
> What would be nice though is pursuing the idea of alternative UI kits in Squeak - being able to unload and switch between Full Morphic / SimpleMorphic / Native / HTML interfaces, all backed by ToolBuilder seems very useful. For the HTML interface you could e.g. just add a WebKit plugin.

Or just serve HTTP in the image and use an off-the-shelf browser.
OmniBrowser has a web UI that works quite well.

Colin

Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: Morphic on HTML+CSS

Bert Freudenberg

On 14.06.2011, at 09:31, Colin Putney wrote:

> On Tue, Jun 14, 2011 at 9:27 AM, Bert Freudenberg <[hidden email]> wrote:
>> What would be nice though is pursuing the idea of alternative UI kits in Squeak - being able to unload and switch between Full Morphic / SimpleMorphic / Native / HTML interfaces, all backed by ToolBuilder seems very useful. For the HTML interface you could e.g. just add a WebKit plugin.
>
> Or just serve HTTP in the image and use an off-the-shelf browser.
> OmniBrowser has a web UI that works quite well.

Requiring an external browser is not the same thing, IMHO, as having a desktop UI (even if that uses HTML behind the scenes).

- Bert -



Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: Morphic on HTML+CSS

Yoshiki Ohshima-2
In reply to this post by Bert Freudenberg
At Tue, 14 Jun 2011 09:27:30 -0700,
Bert Freudenberg wrote:
>
>
>
> Well, it would be great to see more of the good ideas in Squeak and its ancestors getting wider adoption. Seeing Morphic on the web is cool, but that's somewhat unrelated to Squeak.
>
> Having style sheets in Squeak's Morphic would be cool too. The Sophie developers used style sheets for their Tweak UI. But I don't think HTML would be a good choice for Squeak's Morphic. Implementing a fully compliant HTML renderer is Hard, and I don't see the added complexity being worth it.
>
> What would be nice though is pursuing the idea of alternative UI kits in Squeak - being able to unload and switch between Full Morphic / SimpleMorphic / Native / HTML interfaces, all backed by ToolBuilder seems very useful. For the HTML interface you could e.g. just add a WebKit plugin.

  Sounds good.

  BTW, you can get the references to JS objects from Google Native
Client and send messages to them.  We can write a bridge to them, and
then we should be able to mix the HTML rendered objects and
Squeak-rendered objects in Chrome.

-- Yoshiki



Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: Morphic on HTML+CSS

Richard Durr-2
Well, just port morphic to clamato/jtalk then.

On Tue, Jun 14, 2011 at 7:00 PM, Yoshiki Ohshima <[hidden email]> wrote:
At Tue, 14 Jun 2011 09:27:30 -0700,
Bert Freudenberg wrote:
>
>
>
> Well, it would be great to see more of the good ideas in Squeak and its ancestors getting wider adoption. Seeing Morphic on the web is cool, but that's somewhat unrelated to Squeak.
>
> Having style sheets in Squeak's Morphic would be cool too. The Sophie developers used style sheets for their Tweak UI. But I don't think HTML would be a good choice for Squeak's Morphic. Implementing a fully compliant HTML renderer is Hard, and I don't see the added complexity being worth it.
>
> What would be nice though is pursuing the idea of alternative UI kits in Squeak - being able to unload and switch between Full Morphic / SimpleMorphic / Native / HTML interfaces, all backed by ToolBuilder seems very useful. For the HTML interface you could e.g. just add a WebKit plugin.

 Sounds good.

 BTW, you can get the references to JS objects from Google Native
Client and send messages to them.  We can write a bridge to them, and
then we should be able to mix the HTML rendered objects and
Squeak-rendered objects in Chrome.

-- Yoshiki






Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: Morphic on HTML+CSS

Colin Putney-3
In reply to this post by Bert Freudenberg
On Tue, Jun 14, 2011 at 9:39 AM, Bert Freudenberg <[hidden email]> wrote:

> Requiring an external browser is not the same thing, IMHO, as having a desktop UI (even if that uses HTML behind the scenes).

Right. An HTTP UI would still use ToolBuilder, but the UI would be
rendered by another application. So?

Colin

Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: Morphic on HTML+CSS

Göran Krampe
In reply to this post by Yoshiki Ohshima-2
Hi!

On 06/14/2011 07:00 PM, Yoshiki Ohshima wrote:

> At Tue, 14 Jun 2011 09:27:30 -0700,
> Bert Freudenberg wrote:
>> What would be nice though is pursuing the idea of alternative UI kits in Squeak - being able to unload and switch between Full Morphic / SimpleMorphic / Native / HTML interfaces, all backed by ToolBuilder seems very useful. For the HTML interface you could e.g. just add a WebKit plugin.
>
>    Sounds good.
>
>    BTW, you can get the references to JS objects from Google Native
> Client and send messages to them.  We can write a bridge to them, and
> then we should be able to mix the HTML rendered objects and
> Squeak-rendered objects in Chrome.
>
> -- Yoshiki

I am deeply looking into WebOS 3.0 right now - got early access to the
SDK. And WebOS is *all javascript*, they even use Node.js as the
background service technology. The new framework for apps is called Enyo
and is simply a javascript UI framework that can actually run fine
inside Chrome!

WebOS 3.0 also supports "hybrid apps" which means you can use C/C++ to
build a "plugin" that can talk to the js side running in V8/webkit. So
one idea is to put a headless Squeak VM in there as a plugin and let it
drive the js side. Another, complimentary idea is to use JTalk on the js
side.

And finally, yes, WebOS supports SDL/OpenGL ES - so a regular Squeak
port is also plausible. And it would be cool if we could put energy into
Igor's OpenGL backed Morphic canvas.

regards, Göran

PS. HP Touchpad to be released on 1st of july.

Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: Morphic on HTML+CSS

Janko Mivšek
In reply to this post by Bert Freudenberg


S, Bert Freudenberg piše:

>> 1. is this a clear signal that HTML5 for ALL apps, both desktop and the
>>   web is inevitable?
>
> Just as much as Java is inevitably the only choice for ALL apps, both desktop and the web

There is a difference. Java is product of marketing while trio
HTML+CSS+JavaScript is a product of slow progress through last 15-20
years, commming only these days everywhere on the frontline. It is not
hard to imagine which is therefore more mature.
.

>
>> 2. is this a clear signal that we need to rebuild Morphic on top of
>>   HTML+CSS, to leverage all Morphic advantages and come back
>>   to bleeding edge again?
>
> There already is Jens's Morphic.js:
>
> http://www.chirp.scratchr.org/blog/?p=34
>
> And Lively Kernel is Morphic too, even more embodying the spirit of Squeak as a personal computing environment.
>
>> I think yes. What Squeak/Pharo/Cuis GUI masters say?
>
> Well, it would be great to see more of the good ideas in Squeak and its ancestors getting wider adoption. Seeing Morphic on the web is cool, but that's somewhat unrelated to Squeak.
>
> Having style sheets in Squeak's Morphic would be cool too. The Sophie developers used style sheets for their Tweak UI. But I don't think HTML would be a good choice for Squeak's Morphic. Implementing a fully compliant HTML renderer is Hard, and I don't see the added complexity being worth it.

We wont need to implement our own HTML renderer but use the platform
one, like WebKit etc. Trend namely also is to put HTML5+CSS-JAvaScript
support directly into operating system. See Google's ChromeOS as a first
example, Windows 8 following, soon every operating system will have a
HTML subsystem like as file system. By puting our image on top of HTML
layer as a level higher than a plain graphics as now we'll therefore
jump one level higher too.

> What would be nice though is pursuing the idea of alternative UI kits in Squeak - being able to unload and switch between Full Morphic / SimpleMorphic / Native / HTML interfaces, all backed by ToolBuilder seems very useful. For the HTML interface you could e.g. just add a WebKit plugin.



Janko


--
Janko Mivšek
Aida/Web
Smalltalk Web Application Server
http://www.aidaweb.si

Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: Morphic on HTML+CSS

Janko Mivšek
In reply to this post by Colin Putney-3
S, Colin Putney piše:

>> In light of recent Microsoft surprising U-turn announcement [1] that in
>> Windows 8 it swithes to HTML5 (HTML5+CSS+JavaScript) instead of .NET+WPF
>> and Silverlight for desktop app development it is IMO a right time to
>> think about:
>>
>> 1. is this a clear signal that HTML5 for ALL apps, both desktop and the
>>   web is inevitable?
>
> No. Apple isn't going that way, and Microsoft is just dipping its toe
> in the water.
>
>> 2. is this a clear signal that we need to rebuild Morphic on top of
>>   HTML+CSS, to leverage all Morphic advantages and come back
>>   to bleeding edge again?
>
> Dan Ingalls has done it already: http://lively-kernel.org/

Lively is a project to watch and study, but Lively is JavaScript only,
not using HTML and CSS, as far as I know.

Separation of design with CSS is namely something which really raised
the creativity fo designers on the web. This can help building better
and nicely looking Smalltalk apps too!

Janko

--
Janko Mivšek
Aida/Web
Smalltalk Web Application Server
http://www.aidaweb.si

Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: Morphic on HTML+CSS

Igor Stasenko
2011/6/15 Janko Mivšek <[hidden email]>:

> S, Colin Putney piše:
>
>>> In light of recent Microsoft surprising U-turn announcement [1] that in
>>> Windows 8 it swithes to HTML5 (HTML5+CSS+JavaScript) instead of .NET+WPF
>>> and Silverlight for desktop app development it is IMO a right time to
>>> think about:
>>>
>>> 1. is this a clear signal that HTML5 for ALL apps, both desktop and the
>>>   web is inevitable?
>>
>> No. Apple isn't going that way, and Microsoft is just dipping its toe
>> in the water.
>>
>>> 2. is this a clear signal that we need to rebuild Morphic on top of
>>>   HTML+CSS, to leverage all Morphic advantages and come back
>>>   to bleeding edge again?
>>
>> Dan Ingalls has done it already: http://lively-kernel.org/
>
> Lively is a project to watch and study, but Lively is JavaScript only,
> not using HTML and CSS, as far as I know.
>
> Separation of design with CSS is namely something which really raised
> the creativity fo designers on the web. This can help building better
> and nicely looking Smalltalk apps too!
>

indeed. this separation is good.
And it would be even better if you separate HTML from the web :)


> Janko
>
> --
> Janko Mivšek
> Aida/Web
> Smalltalk Web Application Server
> http://www.aidaweb.si
>
>



--
Best regards,
Igor Stasenko AKA sig.

Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: Morphic on HTML+CSS

Janko Mivšek
S, Igor Stasenko piše:

>>>> 2. is this a clear signal that we need to rebuild Morphic on top of
>>>>   HTML+CSS, to leverage all Morphic advantages and come back
>>>>   to bleeding edge again?
>>>
>>> Dan Ingalls has done it already: http://lively-kernel.org/
>>
>> Lively is a project to watch and study, but Lively is JavaScript only,
>> not using HTML and CSS, as far as I know.
>>
>> Separation of design with CSS is namely something which really raised
>> the creativity fo designers on the web. This can help building better
>> and nicely looking Smalltalk apps too!
>>
>
> indeed. this separation is good.
> And it would be even better if you separate HTML from the web :)

You actually can. There is no need for HTML to render webpages, as
Lively show nicely. Pages can be composed just from JavaScript by DOM
manipulation API. Same with CSS. And even a combination is possible: JS
built page, but with classical external CSS.

External CSS is ideal for web designers and Lively can be actually
improved visualy that way. Whic would also make it more popular, we
shouldn't forget aesthetics even for academic work to be successful
these days  :)

Best regards
Janko

--
Janko Mivšek
Svetovalec za informatiko
Eranova d.o.o.
Ljubljana, Slovenija
www.eranova.si
tel:  01 514 22 55
faks: 01 514 22 56
gsm: 031 674 565

Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: Morphic on HTML+CSS

Igor Stasenko
2011/6/17 Janko Mivšek <[hidden email]>:

> S, Igor Stasenko piše:
>
>>>>> 2. is this a clear signal that we need to rebuild Morphic on top of
>>>>>   HTML+CSS, to leverage all Morphic advantages and come back
>>>>>   to bleeding edge again?
>>>>
>>>> Dan Ingalls has done it already: http://lively-kernel.org/
>>>
>>> Lively is a project to watch and study, but Lively is JavaScript only,
>>> not using HTML and CSS, as far as I know.
>>>
>>> Separation of design with CSS is namely something which really raised
>>> the creativity fo designers on the web. This can help building better
>>> and nicely looking Smalltalk apps too!
>>>
>>
>> indeed. this separation is good.
>> And it would be even better if you separate HTML from the web :)
>
> You actually can. There is no need for HTML to render webpages, as
> Lively show nicely. Pages can be composed just from JavaScript by DOM
> manipulation API. Same with CSS. And even a combination is possible: JS
> built page, but with classical external CSS.
>
> External CSS is ideal for web designers and Lively can be actually
> improved visualy that way. Whic would also make it more popular, we
> shouldn't forget aesthetics even for academic work to be successful
> these days  :)
>

Yes, what i meant to say, that the idea of separating markup from
styles using CSS is good.
So, if we could make real objects (like morphs) and apply css on them,
it would be much nicer.

> Best regards
> Janko
>
> --
> Janko Mivšek
> Svetovalec za informatiko
> Eranova d.o.o.
> Ljubljana, Slovenija
> www.eranova.si
> tel:  01 514 22 55
> faks: 01 514 22 56
> gsm: 031 674 565
>
>



--
Best regards,
Igor Stasenko AKA sig.

Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: Morphic on HTML+CSS

Gary Dunn-2
In reply to this post by Janko Mivšek
2011/6/15 Janko Mivšek <[hidden email]>:

>
>
> S, Bert Freudenberg piše:
>
>>> 1. is this a clear signal that HTML5 for ALL apps, both desktop and the
>>>   web is inevitable?
>>
>> Just as much as Java is inevitably the only choice for ALL apps, both desktop and the web
>
> There is a difference. Java is product of marketing while trio
> HTML+CSS+JavaScript is a product of slow progress through last 15-20
> years, commming only these days everywhere on the frontline. It is not
> hard to imagine which is therefore more mature.
[snip]

More discussion on HTML5 at

http://tech.slashdot.org/story/11/06/17/194220/Microsoft-Google-Twitter-Debate-HTML5

That Slashdot item references this piece:

http://www.networkworld.com/news/2011/061711-microsoft-twitter-google-html5.html

I happen to enjoy reading Slashdot comments.

--
Gary Dunn
Honolulu