Re: [vwnc] RB instance variables tab

> I used to love settings and options before I worked on BottomFeeder.
>  Then I realized large numbers of settings and options mostly paralyze
> people into a state of complete inertia.
>
> I'd rather <remove> options from the system and create a set of simple
> defaults, and let the (relative) handful of hackers who really care
> have a roadmap for where to intervene.
>
> Such interventions should ideally be easy to do, but surfacing every
> little detail as a settings makes things harder, not easier
>
> James Robertson
> Cincom Smalltalk Product Evangelist
> http://www.cincomsmalltalk.com/blog/blogView
> Talk Small and Carry a Big Class Library
>
>
>
>
> On Jul 3, 2009, at 5:32 PM, Terry Raymond wrote:
>
>> Georg
>>  
>> Not simply a setting, but an option on the variables menu.
>>  
>>
>> Terry
>>
>> ===========================================================
>> Terry Raymond
>> Crafted Smalltalk
>> 80 Lazywood Ln.
>> Tiverton, RI  02878
>> (401) 624-4517      [hidden email]
>> <mailto:[hidden email]>
>> <http://www.craftedsmalltalk.com>
>> ===========================================================
>>
>> ------------------------------------------------------------------------
>> *From:* [hidden email]
>> <mailto:[hidden email]>
>> [mailto:[hidden email]] *On Behalf Of *Georg Heeg
>> *Sent:* Friday, July 03, 2009 4:53 PM
>> *To:* 'Steven Kelly'; 'VW Dev list'
>> *Subject:* AW: RB instance variables tab
>>  
>> What do you think about a setting with the following alternatives?
>>
>>    1. show instance variables in definition order
>>    2. show instance variables in alphabetical order
>>    3. show instance variables in hierarchical and then alphabetical order
>>
>>  
>> Georg
>>  
>> Georg Heeg eK, Dortmund und Köthen, HR Dortmund A 12812
>> Tel. +49-3496-214328, Fax +49-3496-214712
>> ------------------------------------------------------------------------
>> *Von:* [hidden email] <mailto:[hidden email]>
>> [mailto:[hidden email]] *Im Auftrag von *Steven Kelly
>> *Gesendet:* Freitag, 3. Juli 2009 22:39
>> *An:* VW Dev list
>> *Betreff:* RE: RB instance variables tab
>>  
>> I'd like to add my vote for showing instance variables in the order
>> they actually exist in. This order should be used everywhere:
>> instance variables definition line in RB, RB instance variables pane,
>> RB add accessors dialog, Trippy etc. I've defined the variables in a
>> certain order, and the class hierarchy enforces a certain partial
>> order, so to my mind it's clear that they should be shown in the
>> actual order. We could compare and contrast with the tree of pundles
>> at the top left of the RB: the top-level bundles are defined in no
>> particular order, so it's right to sort them alphabetically. Within a
>> bundle, however, the packages are specified in a certain order, and
>> should thus be shown in that order.
>>  
>> Steve
>>  
>> ------------------------------------------------------------------------
>>
>> *From:* [hidden email]
>> <mailto:[hidden email]> on behalf of Andre Schnoor
>> *Sent:* Fri 7/3/2009 23:03
>> *To:* Terry Raymond
>> *Cc:* VW Dev list
>> *Subject:* Re: RB instance variables tab
>>
>>  
>>
>> Am 03.07.2009 um 19:35 schrieb Terry Raymond:
>>
>> >
>> > I just noticed in cake jun09.4 that the instance variables are in
>> > alphabetical order.
>> > While sometimes this is nice I would much prefer to see them in
>> > class heirarchy order.
>>
>>
>> Please apologize, if this is redunant. I didnt get around to looking
>> at this yet, but would like to keep the strict sequential order.
>>
>> I often need to know the physical sequence of instance vars (for
>> writing BOSS format converters) and tend to order them after a
>> specific semantics (e.g. abstract comes first), or group them by
>> relationship. This almost never corelates with alphabetical order.
>>
>> Andre
>>
>

> I think there are two issues with removing "too many" settings, for some
> reasonable definition of "too many".
>
> a) One size definitely does not fit all.
>
> b) Who makes the decision?  On what grounds?  We generally dislike
> Java's "final" keyword.  Isn't providing a fixed set of settings
> somebody deems acceptable the same thing?
>
> Also, what does Eclipse do in this regard?  Very few settings, or
> numerous settings?  XCode has numerous settings, but using it left me
> with the impression that it simplifies life too much.  For example, I
> find debugging easier with gdb rather than with XCode.  I think XCode
> should actually expose more of the underlying environment to the user.
> Also, several pieces of software I know have an "easy mode" and an
> "advanced mode" in which tons of options and switches become available.
> I think the dual mode of operation is a recognition of point a) above.
>
> I don't know what to say about users getting paralyzed when faced with
> settings.  What do we expect people using Smalltalk to do?  Is "dealing
> with settings" more demanding than "build your web application
> successfully", for example?  Besides, I don't see how removing settings
> from the IDE makes the task of programming my stuff easier.  After all,
> we generally do not spend a lot of time dealing with settings in the
> first place.  Once we get the IDE to behave the way we want, that's it.
> On the other hand, if we can't get the IDE to behave, then we are forced
> to override code in the image.  That is much more time consuming than
> going through a page of checkboxes and drop down lists...
>
> Finally, if I had to choose, I'd rather see instance variables sorted by
> definition sequence.  I am tempted to say that if alphabetic sorting is
> deemed convenient, objects have way too many instance variables and the
> real issue is one of design.
>
> Andres.
>
>
> James Robertson wrote:
>  
>> I used to love settings and options before I worked on BottomFeeder.
>>  Then I realized large numbers of settings and options mostly paralyze
>> people into a state of complete inertia.
>>
>> I'd rather <remove> options from the system and create a set of simple
>> defaults, and let the (relative) handful of hackers who really care
>> have a roadmap for where to intervene.
>>
>> Such interventions should ideally be easy to do, but surfacing every
>> little detail as a settings makes things harder, not easier
>>
>> James Robertson
>> Cincom Smalltalk Product Evangelist
>> http://www.cincomsmalltalk.com/blog/blogView
>> Talk Small and Carry a Big Class Library
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> On Jul 3, 2009, at 5:32 PM, Terry Raymond wrote:
>>
>>    
>>> Georg
>>>
>>> Not simply a setting, but an option on the variables menu.
>>>
>>>
>>> Terry
>>>
>>> ===========================================================
>>> Terry Raymond
>>> Crafted Smalltalk
>>> 80 Lazywood Ln.
>>> Tiverton, RI  02878
>>> (401) 624-4517      [hidden email]
>>> <mailto:[hidden email]>
>>> <http://www.craftedsmalltalk.com>
>>> ===========================================================
>>>
>>> ------------------------------------------------------------------------
>>> *From:* [hidden email]
>>> <mailto:[hidden email]>
>>> [mailto:[hidden email]] *On Behalf Of *Georg Heeg
>>> *Sent:* Friday, July 03, 2009 4:53 PM
>>> *To:* 'Steven Kelly'; 'VW Dev list'
>>> *Subject:* AW: RB instance variables tab
>>>
>>> What do you think about a setting with the following alternatives?
>>>
>>>    1. show instance variables in definition order
>>>    2. show instance variables in alphabetical order
>>>    3. show instance variables in hierarchical and then alphabetical order
>>>
>>>
>>> Georg
>>>
>>> Georg Heeg eK, Dortmund und Köthen, HR Dortmund A 12812
>>> Tel. +49-3496-214328, Fax +49-3496-214712
>>> ------------------------------------------------------------------------
>>> *Von:* [hidden email] <mailto:[hidden email]>
>>> [mailto:[hidden email]] *Im Auftrag von *Steven Kelly
>>> *Gesendet:* Freitag, 3. Juli 2009 22:39
>>> *An:* VW Dev list
>>> *Betreff:* RE: RB instance variables tab
>>>
>>> I'd like to add my vote for showing instance variables in the order
>>> they actually exist in. This order should be used everywhere:
>>> instance variables definition line in RB, RB instance variables pane,
>>> RB add accessors dialog, Trippy etc. I've defined the variables in a
>>> certain order, and the class hierarchy enforces a certain partial
>>> order, so to my mind it's clear that they should be shown in the
>>> actual order. We could compare and contrast with the tree of pundles
>>> at the top left of the RB: the top-level bundles are defined in no
>>> particular order, so it's right to sort them alphabetically. Within a
>>> bundle, however, the packages are specified in a certain order, and
>>> should thus be shown in that order.
>>>
>>> Steve
>>>
>>> ------------------------------------------------------------------------
>>>
>>> *From:* [hidden email]
>>> <mailto:[hidden email]> on behalf of Andre Schnoor
>>> *Sent:* Fri 7/3/2009 23:03
>>> *To:* Terry Raymond
>>> *Cc:* VW Dev list
>>> *Subject:* Re: RB instance variables tab
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> Am 03.07.2009 um 19:35 schrieb Terry Raymond:
>>>
>>>      
>>>> I just noticed in cake jun09.4 that the instance variables are in
>>>> alphabetical order.
>>>> While sometimes this is nice I would much prefer to see them in
>>>> class heirarchy order.
>>>>        
>>> Please apologize, if this is redunant. I didnt get around to looking
>>> at this yet, but would like to keep the strict sequential order.
>>>
>>> I often need to know the physical sequence of instance vars (for
>>> writing BOSS format converters) and tend to order them after a
>>> specific semantics (e.g. abstract comes first), or group them by
>>> relationship. This almost never corelates with alphabetical order.
>>>
>>> Andre
>>>
>>>      
> _______________________________________________
> vwnc mailing list
> [hidden email]
> http://lists.cs.uiuc.edu/mailman/listinfo/vwnc
> .
>
>