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 |
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/ |
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 |
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 - |
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 |
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 |
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 - |
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 |
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, |
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 |
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. |
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 |
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 |
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. |
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 |
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. |
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. 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 |
Free forum by Nabble | Edit this page |