Nautilus questions

On 19 Aug 2015, at 11:44, Thierry Goubier <[hidden email]> wrote:

<Screen Shot 2015-08-19 at 11.10.41.png>

… but arriving to it is not so easy. 

In conclusion: We are doing some right steps. It is not finished, but we are not going to go back to older way :)

Hi Esteban,

My opinion is that you're still tied a lot to the Smalltalk 80's way... Which is good: someone coming from 1980 would be able to use Nautilus ;)

My critics on that design: the tabs are nice and certainly help see that a class has a class side. Overall look is more up to date. Tabs headers, scroll bars, etc... take far too much space: work area (the code area) is 39% of overall window size, and 68% counting in the context (package, class, protocol and method) (Numbers are worse on a small window, of course, but I guess some do work on small screens).

It will be nice to see simpler / cleaner Nautilus code coming along :)

yes, of course you are right :)

the GTools guys are working in a complete replacement, and I’m sure it will be a lot better… but we will always need a backdoor… and I would like to have a good browser even as a backdoor. 

(also, our philosophy is incremental: we improve what we have while we wait for the break-thru improvements)

Esteban

ps: for me the “code area” is not equivalent to the “work area”: I spend much more time understanding a problem than coding it, and for that a view of the method *in the context* is better)

Thierry

Hitting send too early :(

2015-08-19 11:59 GMT+02:00 Esteban Lorenzano <[hidden email]>:

On 19 Aug 2015, at 11:50, Esteban Lorenzano <[hidden email]> wrote:

On 19 Aug 2015, at 11:44, Thierry Goubier <[hidden email]> wrote:

<Screen Shot 2015-08-19 at 11.10.41.png>

… but arriving to it is not so easy. 

In conclusion: We are doing some right steps. It is not finished, but we are not going to go back to older way :)

Hi Esteban,

My opinion is that you're still tied a lot to the Smalltalk 80's way... Which is good: someone coming from 1980 would be able to use Nautilus ;)

My critics on that design: the tabs are nice and certainly help see that a class has a class side. Overall look is more up to date. Tabs headers, scroll bars, etc... take far too much space: work area (the code area) is 39% of overall window size, and 68% counting in the context (package, class, protocol and method) (Numbers are worse on a small window, of course, but I guess some do work on small screens).

It will be nice to see simpler / cleaner Nautilus code coming along :)

yes, of course you are right :)

the GTools guys are working in a complete replacement, and I’m sure it will be a lot better… but we will always need a backdoor… and I would like to have a good browser even as a backdoor. 

I'm certainly looking forward for the GT-based system browser results, while probably I won't be using it; some of the design / implementation choices of the GT tools just don't fit the way I work, and I feel down by just looking at how clumsy and slow I become when using them.

(also, our philosophy is incremental: we improve what we have while we wait for the break-thru improvements)

Agreed. I still miss a bit the OmniBrowser I started Pharo with... Especially the code regularity and architecture. 

Esteban

ps: for me the “code area” is not equivalent to the “work area”: I spend much more time understanding a problem than coding it, and for that a view of the method *in the context* is better)

That's why I added the 68% result: I do agree that the context matter; I still think that the overhead is too high.

 

for example: I try your alt browser time to time, because I find it has some good ideas. 

But since my workflow is usually: I dig a package, then I see the classes inside and try to figure out how they work together, then I read the comments, try to find examples, tests… then I finally go to the method level, and even that often with an eye into the class it belongs and even the package… so the AltBrowser is useless for me… it is really not confortable for me to use… and yes, it has a bigger code area, but that is not really relevant (for me). 

… and the traditional browser adapts a lot better to that way of doing.

I think I more or less do the same, but with a slightly different approach, with for example a lot of scoping (to a class, to a package, implementors, senders, finder). I especially rely on the fact that I stay in the browser task model (but with multiple windows) all the time while doing that; I don't have to deal with disparate tools (Spotter, Finder, MessageList).

I also like the fact I can see both class and instance side methods at the same time...

 

Now… real question is: I work that way because fits better my mind-model or my mind-model fits what the browser provides me? well, who knows… but back in my java days I also was using the “java browsing perspective” of Eclipse, who resembles a Smalltalk browser.

The good question we have here is that our search/exploration/understanding strategies are different, but based on the same building blocks... So there is some Moldable issue there as per the GT group, but not inside the tool as they are currently doing, instead the tool itself has to be moldable (or what is the tool).

Now, I'm so attuned to the Alt Browser tree view that I prefer it in any case... even to the point that I can do short and fast smalltalk edits directly on github through the web interface.

Thierry

Esteban

Thierry

Le 20 août 2015 09:15, "stepharo" <[hidden email]> a écrit :
>
> For example why protocol get the same space than method. We could split the protocol by half and use the space for
> soemthing useful.

Protocol names can be long...
>
> I would like the coding area to expand a bit when a method is too long.
> I do it all the time by hand.

Yes, especially with Seaside renderOn:

Phil

>
> Stef
>
>
> Le 19/8/15 13:13, Thierry Goubier a écrit :
>>
>> Hitting send too early :(
>>
>> 2015-08-19 11:59 GMT+02:00 Esteban Lorenzano <[hidden email]>:
>>>
>>>
>>>> On 19 Aug 2015, at 11:50, Esteban Lorenzano <[hidden email]> wrote:
>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> On 19 Aug 2015, at 11:44, Thierry Goubier <[hidden email]> wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>> <Screen Shot 2015-08-19 at 11.10.41.png>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> … but arriving to it is not so easy. 
>>>>>>
>>>>>> In conclusion: We are doing some right steps. It is not finished, but we are not going to go back to older way :)
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> Hi Esteban,
>>>>>
>>>>> My opinion is that you're still tied a lot to the Smalltalk 80's way... Which is good: someone coming from 1980 would be able to use Nautilus ;)
>>>>>
>>>>> My critics on that design: the tabs are nice and certainly help see that a class has a class side. Overall look is more up to date. Tabs headers, scroll bars, etc... take far too much space: work area (the code area) is 39% of overall window size, and 68% counting in the context (package, class, protocol and method) (Numbers are worse on a small window, of course, but I guess some do work on small screens).
>>>>>
>>>>> It will be nice to see simpler / cleaner Nautilus code coming along :)
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> yes, of course you are right :)
>>>> the GTools guys are working in a complete replacement, and I’m sure it will be a lot better… but we will always need a backdoor… and I would like to have a good browser even as a backdoor. 
>>
>> I'm certainly looking forward for the GT-based system browser results, while probably I won't be using it; some of the design / implementation choices of the GT tools just don't fit the way I work, and I feel down by just looking at how clumsy and slow I become when using them.
>>>>
>>>> (also, our philosophy is incremental: we improve what we have while we wait for the break-thru improvements)
>>
>> Agreed. I still miss a bit the OmniBrowser I started Pharo with... Especially the code regularity and architecture. 
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> Esteban
>>>>
>>>> ps: for me the “code area” is not equivalent to the “work area”: I spend much more time understanding a problem than coding it, and for that a view of the method *in the context* is better)
>>
>> That's why I added the 68% result: I do agree that the context matter; I still think that the overhead is too high.
>>  
>>>
>>>
>>> for example: I try your alt browser time to time, because I find it has some good ideas. 
>>> But since my workflow is usually: I dig a package, then I see the classes inside and try to figure out how they work together, then I read the comments, try to find examples, tests… then I finally go to the method level, and even that often with an eye into the class it belongs and even the package… so the AltBrowser is useless for me… it is really not confortable for me to use… and yes, it has a bigger code area, but that is not really relevant (for me). 
>>> … and the traditional browser adapts a lot better to that way of doing.
>>
>>
>> I think I more or less do the same, but with a slightly different approach, with for example a lot of scoping (to a class, to a package, implementors, senders, finder). I especially rely on the fact that I stay in the browser task model (but with multiple windows) all the time while doing that; I don't have to deal with disparate tools (Spotter, Finder, MessageList).
>>
>> I also like the fact I can see both class and instance side methods at the same time...
>>  
>>>
>>> Now… real question is: I work that way because fits better my mind-model or my mind-model fits what the browser provides me? well, who knows… but back in my java days I also was using the “java browsing perspective” of Eclipse, who resembles a Smalltalk browser.
>>
>>
>> The good question we have here is that our search/exploration/understanding strategies are different, but based on the same building blocks... So there is some Moldable issue there as per the GT group, but not inside the tool as they are currently doing, instead the tool itself has to be moldable (or what is the tool).
>>
>> Now, I'm so attuned to the Alt Browser tree view that I prefer it in any case... even to the point that I can do short and fast smalltalk edits directly on github through the web interface.
>>
>> Thierry
>>
>>>
>>> Esteban
>>>
>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> Thierry
>>>
>>>
>>
>

Maybe there is something to do with line numbers in the code area for the assistant.
Something like :
- No ctiric, do not show anything
- Critic to show about a line -> activate the line numbers and put a warning on this line in the left column.

Franck

---

Date: Thu, 20 Aug 2015 09:13:09 +0200
From: [hidden email]
To: [hidden email]
Subject: Re: [Pharo-dev] Nautilus questions

Sorry but reading code is really important and now assistant is taking too much space.
And your proposal does not take into account hierarchy and I use it all the time.
The same way we use all the time variables.

Stef

Le 19/8/15 11:50, Esteban Lorenzano a écrit :

On 19 Aug 2015, at 11:44, Thierry Goubier <[hidden email]> wrote:

<Screen Shot 2015-08-19 at 11.10.41.png>

… but arriving to it is not so easy. 

In conclusion: We are doing some right steps. It is not finished, but we are not going to go back to older way :)

Hi Esteban,

My opinion is that you're still tied a lot to the Smalltalk 80's way... Which is good: someone coming from 1980 would be able to use Nautilus ;)

My critics on that design: the tabs are nice and certainly help see that a class has a class side. Overall look is more up to date. Tabs headers, scroll bars, etc... take far too much space: work area (the code area) is 39% of overall window size, and 68% counting in the context (package, class, protocol and method) (Numbers are worse on a small window, of course, but I guess some do work on small screens).

It will be nice to see simpler / cleaner Nautilus code coming along :)

yes, of course you are right :)

the GTools guys are working in a complete replacement, and I’m sure it will be a lot better… but we will always need a backdoor… and I would like to have a good browser even as a backdoor. 

(also, our philosophy is incremental: we improve what we have while we wait for the break-thru improvements)

Esteban

ps: for me the “code area” is not equivalent to the “work area”: I spend much more time understanding a problem than coding it, and for that a view of the method *in the context* is better)

Thierry

Le 20 août 2015 09:15, "stepharo" <[hidden email]> a écrit :
>
> For example why protocol get the same space than method. We could split the protocol by half and use the space for
> soemthing useful.

Protocol names can be long...

>
> I would like the coding area to expand a bit when a method is too long.
> I do it all the time by hand.

Yes, especially with Seaside renderOn:

Phil

>
> Stef
>
>
> Le 19/8/15 13:13, Thierry Goubier a écrit :
>>
>> Hitting send too early :(
>>
>> 2015-08-19 11:59 GMT+02:00 Esteban Lorenzano <[hidden email]>:
>>>
>>>
>>>> On 19 Aug 2015, at 11:50, Esteban Lorenzano <[hidden email]> wrote:
>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> On 19 Aug 2015, at 11:44, Thierry Goubier <[hidden email]> wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>> <Screen Shot 2015-08-19 at 11.10.41.png>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> … but arriving to it is not so easy. 
>>>>>>
>>>>>> In conclusion: We are doing some right steps. It is not finished, but we are not going to go back to older way :)
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> Hi Esteban,
>>>>>
>>>>> My opinion is that you're still tied a lot to the Smalltalk 80's way... Which is good: someone coming from 1980 would be able to use Nautilus ;)
>>>>>
>>>>> My critics on that design: the tabs are nice and certainly help see that a class has a class side. Overall look is more up to date. Tabs headers, scroll bars, etc... take far too much space: work area (the code area) is 39% of overall window size, and 68% counting in the context (package, class, protocol and method) (Numbers are worse on a small window, of course, but I guess some do work on small screens).
>>>>>
>>>>> It will be nice to see simpler / cleaner Nautilus code coming along :)
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> yes, of course you are right :)
>>>> the GTools guys are working in a complete replacement, and I’m sure it will be a lot better… but we will always need a backdoor… and I would like to have a good browser even as a backdoor. 
>>
>> I'm certainly looking forward for the GT-based system browser results, while probably I won't be using it; some of the design / implementation choices of the GT tools just don't fit the way I work, and I feel down by just looking at how clumsy and slow I become when using them.
>>>>
>>>> (also, our philosophy is incremental: we improve what we have while we wait for the break-thru improvements)
>>
>> Agreed. I still miss a bit the OmniBrowser I started Pharo with... Especially the code regularity and architecture. 
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> Esteban
>>>>
>>>> ps: for me the “code area” is not equivalent to the “work area”: I spend much more time understanding a problem than coding it, and for that a view of the method *in the context* is better)
>>
>> That's why I added the 68% result: I do agree that the context matter; I still think that the overhead is too high.
>>  
>>>
>>>
>>> for example: I try your alt browser time to time, because I find it has some good ideas. 
>>> But since my workflow is usually: I dig a package, then I see the classes inside and try to figure out how they work together, then I read the comments, try to find examples, tests… then I finally go to the method level, and even that often with an eye into the class it belongs and even the package… so the AltBrowser is useless for me… it is really not confortable for me to use… and yes, it has a bigger code area, but that is not really relevant (for me). 
>>> … and the traditional browser adapts a lot better to that way of doing.
>>
>>
>> I think I more or less do the same, but with a slightly different approach, with for example a lot of scoping (to a class, to a package, implementors, senders, finder). I especially rely on the fact that I stay in the browser task model (but with multiple windows) all the time while doing that; I don't have to deal with disparate tools (Spotter, Finder, MessageList).
>>
>> I also like the fact I can see both class and instance side methods at the same time...
>>  
>>>
>>> Now… real question is: I work that way because fits better my mind-model or my mind-model fits what the browser provides me? well, who knows… but back in my java days I also was using the “java browsing perspective” of Eclipse, who resembles a Smalltalk browser.
>>
>>
>> The good question we have here is that our search/exploration/understanding strategies are different, but based on the same building blocks... So there is some Moldable issue there as per the GT group, but not inside the tool as they are currently doing, instead the tool itself has to be moldable (or what is the tool).
>>
>> Now, I'm so attuned to the Alt Browser tree view that I prefer it in any case... even to the point that I can do short and fast smalltalk edits directly on github through the web interface.
>>
>> Thierry
>>
>>>
>>> Esteban
>>>
>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> Thierry
>>>
>>>
>>
>

my “proposal” is just a fast sketch  made to illustrate how I would like to show certain functionality,  it does not take into account any other functionality… If I finish my browser proposal ever, it will have a lot more buttons in the toolbar :)

about hierarchy I think it should spawn a new browser, as before… but it is still something we need to play with it.

The same way we use all the time variables.

*we* use them all the time, but most people does not use them never :)

anyway: an option in a tab is one click, same as with a button: not hard… and we can play with the information we show in auxiliary panels better :)

Esteban

Stef

Le 19/8/15 11:50, Esteban Lorenzano a écrit :

On 19 Aug 2015, at 11:44, Thierry Goubier <[hidden email]> wrote:

<Screen Shot 2015-08-19 at 11.10.41.png>

… but arriving to it is not so easy. 

In conclusion: We are doing some right steps. It is not finished, but we are not going to go back to older way :)

Hi Esteban,

My opinion is that you're still tied a lot to the Smalltalk 80's way... Which is good: someone coming from 1980 would be able to use Nautilus ;)

My critics on that design: the tabs are nice and certainly help see that a class has a class side. Overall look is more up to date. Tabs headers, scroll bars, etc... take far too much space: work area (the code area) is 39% of overall window size, and 68% counting in the context (package, class, protocol and method) (Numbers are worse on a small window, of course, but I guess some do work on small screens).

It will be nice to see simpler / cleaner Nautilus code coming along :)

yes, of course you are right :)

the GTools guys are working in a complete replacement, and I’m sure it will be a lot better… but we will always need a backdoor… and I would like to have a good browser even as a backdoor. 

(also, our philosophy is incremental: we improve what we have while we wait for the break-thru improvements)

Esteban

ps: for me the “code area” is not equivalent to the “work area”: I spend much more time understanding a problem than coding it, and for that a view of the method *in the context* is better)

Thierry

On 20 Aug 2015, at 09:14, stepharo <[hidden email]> wrote:

For example why protocol get the same space than method. We could split the protocol by half and use the space for
soemthing useful.

I would like the coding area to expand a bit when a method is too long.
I do it all the time by hand.

not just a bit: I would like a button (and a key combination) to expand the full area to occupy all browser space when needed. 

and not just the code area: the different panels too: no matter how much you reduce the size of protocols and/or packages, there will always be methods and classes with bigger names… I think an “expand” function is better solution than arbitrary change panel sizes.

Esteban

Stef

Le 19/8/15 13:13, Thierry Goubier a écrit :

Hitting send too early :(

2015-08-19 11:59 GMT+02:00 Esteban Lorenzano <[hidden email]>:

On 19 Aug 2015, at 11:50, Esteban Lorenzano <[hidden email]> wrote:

On 19 Aug 2015, at 11:44, Thierry Goubier <[hidden email]> wrote:

<Screen Shot 2015-08-19 at 11.10.41.png>

… but arriving to it is not so easy. 

In conclusion: We are doing some right steps. It is not finished, but we are not going to go back to older way :)

Hi Esteban,

My opinion is that you're still tied a lot to the Smalltalk 80's way... Which is good: someone coming from 1980 would be able to use Nautilus ;)

My critics on that design: the tabs are nice and certainly help see that a class has a class side. Overall look is more up to date. Tabs headers, scroll bars, etc... take far too much space: work area (the code area) is 39% of overall window size, and 68% counting in the context (package, class, protocol and method) (Numbers are worse on a small window, of course, but I guess some do work on small screens).

It will be nice to see simpler / cleaner Nautilus code coming along :)

yes, of course you are right :)

the GTools guys are working in a complete replacement, and I’m sure it will be a lot better… but we will always need a backdoor… and I would like to have a good browser even as a backdoor. 

I'm certainly looking forward for the GT-based system browser results, while probably I won't be using it; some of the design / implementation choices of the GT tools just don't fit the way I work, and I feel down by just looking at how clumsy and slow I become when using them.

(also, our philosophy is incremental: we improve what we have while we wait for the break-thru improvements)

Agreed. I still miss a bit the OmniBrowser I started Pharo with... Especially the code regularity and architecture. 

Esteban

ps: for me the “code area” is not equivalent to the “work area”: I spend much more time understanding a problem than coding it, and for that a view of the method *in the context* is better)

That's why I added the 68% result: I do agree that the context matter; I still think that the overhead is too high.

 

for example: I try your alt browser time to time, because I find it has some good ideas. 

But since my workflow is usually: I dig a package, then I see the classes inside and try to figure out how they work together, then I read the comments, try to find examples, tests… then I finally go to the method level, and even that often with an eye into the class it belongs and even the package… so the AltBrowser is useless for me… it is really not confortable for me to use… and yes, it has a bigger code area, but that is not really relevant (for me). 

… and the traditional browser adapts a lot better to that way of doing.

I think I more or less do the same, but with a slightly different approach, with for example a lot of scoping (to a class, to a package, implementors, senders, finder). I especially rely on the fact that I stay in the browser task model (but with multiple windows) all the time while doing that; I don't have to deal with disparate tools (Spotter, Finder, MessageList).

I also like the fact I can see both class and instance side methods at the same time...

 

Now… real question is: I work that way because fits better my mind-model or my mind-model fits what the browser provides me? well, who knows… but back in my java days I also was using the “java browsing perspective” of Eclipse, who resembles a Smalltalk browser.

The good question we have here is that our search/exploration/understanding strategies are different, but based on the same building blocks... So there is some Moldable issue there as per the GT group, but not inside the tool as they are currently doing, instead the tool itself has to be moldable (or what is the tool).

Now, I'm so attuned to the Alt Browser tree view that I prefer it in any case... even to the point that I can do short and fast smalltalk edits directly on github through the web interface.

Thierry

Esteban

Thierry