Serious Squeak (other "survey")
Locked
1234
1234
 
|
Well, sometimes I send this to the maillist but never get answers.
I would like to know your opinion about this. Squeak/Smalltalk is powerful, but for users, or developers in other environments (VB, C, Java etc..), looks like a toy. No games on it, No "famous" app's. All, etoys for kids and a mouse as logo. I think the squeak "world" needs changes, remove pinks colors in the image, and a large etc... Oficial web need's a change, more modern (smalltalk.org too, looks like an abandoned project, and the news about the projects are old) ), writen in smalltalk. About the logo, I sugggest one time, would be interesting thath Squeak take a logo like squeakfoundation. More developers means (not always but...) more packages, more tools, more code, more ideas. And I think we need change some things to get this. ¿What do you think about this? ¿How can I/we help with all of this? I'm sure I'm not the only one with this things in her mind. Cheers. -- ::Mi blog:: http://blog.lordzealon.com Linux-User: #370919 |
Re: Serious Squeak (other "survey")
|
|
Lord ZealoN a écrit :
> Well, sometimes I send this to the maillist but never get answers. > > I would like to know your opinion about this. > > Squeak/Smalltalk is powerful, but for users, or developers in other > environments (VB, C, Java etc..), looks like a toy. No games on it, No > "famous" app's. All, etoys for kids and a mouse as logo. I think the > squeak "world" needs changes, remove pinks colors in the image, and a > large etc... You should try 3.9 and the squeak-dev image: http://damien.cassou.free.fr/squeak-dev/ > ¿What do you think about this? ¿How can I/we help with all of this? You can participate to projects/teams like the Squeak Documentation Project or the creation of an image for developers. There are lots of developers waiting for help. If you have ideas or web skills, you can help for the websites. > I'm sure I'm not the only one with this things in her mind. Nearly everyone is. If you want to help, just do. -- Damien Cassou |
Re: Serious Squeak (other "survey")
|
|
In reply to this post by Lord ZealoN
I would like to get a comlete reorganization of the menu because this
is totally inefficient.... Such as open not the top item of the world menu. > I would like to know your opinion about this. > > Squeak/Smalltalk is powerful, but for users, or developers in other > environments (VB, C, Java etc..), looks like a toy. No games on it, No > "famous" app's. All, etoys for kids and a mouse as logo. I think the > squeak "world" needs changes, remove pinks colors in the image, and a > large etc... Agree. Have you checked the developers image? > Oficial web need's a change, more modern (smalltalk.org too, looks > like an abandoned project, and the news about the projects are old) ), www.squeak.org is much better than what it was used to be. Smalltalk.org is not a public web site. > writen in smalltalk. About the logo, I sugggest one time, would be > interesting thath Squeak take a logo like squeakfoundation. :) Tx I did it :) May be we could use this logo for the dev image. Now the official Smalltalk logo is [|] so the squeakfoundation one is cool. > More developers means (not always but...) more packages, more tools, > more code, more ideas. And I think we need change some things to get > this. > > ¿What do you think about this? ¿How can I/we help with all of this? to prepare changes it would be good to have more tests, make a list of problems clearly identify and propose some solution. For example fixing the menu orders and items would be good. > I'm sure I'm not the only one with this things in her mind. Indeed we are in sync. Stef |
Re: Serious Squeak (other "survey")
|
|
In reply to this post by Lord ZealoN
On Sat, Oct 14, 2006 at 10:41:52AM +0200, Lord ZealoN wrote:
> Well, sometimes I send this to the maillist but never get answers. > > I would like to know your opinion about this. > > Squeak/Smalltalk is powerful, but for users, or developers in other > environments (VB, C, Java etc..), looks like a toy. No games on it, No > "famous" app's. All, etoys for kids and a mouse as logo. I think the > squeak "world" needs changes, remove pinks colors in the image, and a > large etc... This may get me in trouble, but I will make a bold claim: Squeak is a toy. That is a good thing. Squeak is a toy, and therefore it looks like a toy. Aversion to toys is (in my not-so-humble opinion) the worst thing that is taught to programmers (adults?) today. Playing is the only way to make new ideas. One must enjoy playing before they can understand the purpose of Squeak. Until they realize "Squeak is a Toy, and I am OK with that", they are missing the point. A clean object memory, simple syntax, and easy debugging are just implementation issues. The point of Squeak is to have fun building; after that, everything else falls into place. Most programmers (myself included) have been brainwashed by companies invading the school system with their agenda. That is why terrible things like java are allowed to exist. We are told: - Everyone wants a consistent interface - You need complicated software to develop software - You need to go through the university system to be a programmer - Stay away from fast-moving platforms (i.e., the living and active ones with real ideas) - Don't play with toys; do your work Alan Kay has asserted that businesses are not very creative and are stuck in a rut. He says that the only way to make progress is to get un-brainwashed minds (mostly children) into the realm of programming. Most programmers have spent most of their time writing the same code over and over again, and have come to believe that that is the only way to be productive. Creativity is long-gone. In my opinion, overcoming the user interface is the least of our problems; much more difficult is to overcome the ingrained behavior of sticking with the old, stable, and dead platforms that have proliferated the programming world. Computers are much newer than most people would like to think. Like Alan Kay said, it took 150 years after the printing press was invented for newspapers to become common. Before that, they were only used to do old tasks, like print Bibles. Computers today are only used (by most people, businesses, and programmers) to do old tasks, like communication, documentation, and art creation. The new ability that computers have, which is hardly used or even acknowledged, is the ability to think. Computers and humans together, can think in ways that were impossible before. Scientists have some understanding of that ability, but, the more programmers solve the task at hand, the less we will solve the real problem, which is thinking in a new way. Computer-aided thinking is the problem that Squeak and EToys are designed to solve. It is pretty much the only system with that goal in mind, and few people even realize that there is a problem. This is the real issue that confronts people who are not familiar with Squeak: understanding that it solves a real problem. The color scheme is not the issue. Thus I think that looking like a toy is a good thing. However, there is always value in meeting the others halfway, so another color scheme is a good idea. > Oficial web need's a change, more modern (smalltalk.org too, looks > like an abandoned project, and the news about the projects are old) ), > writen in smalltalk. About the logo, I sugggest one time, would be > interesting thath Squeak take a logo like squeakfoundation. Yes, the web person recently left, and his position has not been filled yet. > More developers means (not always but...) more packages, more tools, > more code, more ideas. And I think we need change some things to get > this. Indeed. More developers will be able to help with the implementation issues, and that is a very good thing. However, we must not lose sight of the fact that Squeak is, and must be, a toy that encourages exploration first, and practicality second. > ?What do you think about this? ?How can I/we help with all of this? > > I'm sure I'm not the only one with this things in her mind. > > Cheers. > -- > ::Mi blog:: > http://blog.lordzealon.com > > Linux-User: #370919 > > -- Matthew Fulmer |
Re: Serious Squeak (other "survey")
|
|
Yes, yes, yes!
Great post Matthew! Many of the things you say were forgotten by other Smalltalk dialects. Keeping those ideas is one of distinctive aspects of Squeak. Let's not forget about them! Cheers, Juan Vuletich Matthew Fulmer wrote: > This may get me in trouble, but I will make a bold claim: > > Squeak is a toy. That is a good thing. > > Squeak is a toy, and therefore it looks like a toy. Aversion to > toys is (in my not-so-humble opinion) the worst thing that is > taught to programmers (adults?) today. Playing is the only way > to make new ideas. One must enjoy playing before they can > understand the purpose of Squeak. Until they realize "Squeak is > a Toy, and I am OK with that", they are missing the point. A > clean object memory, simple syntax, and easy debugging are just > implementation issues. The point of Squeak is to have fun > building; after that, everything else falls into place. > > Most programmers (myself included) have been brainwashed by > companies invading the school system with their agenda. That is > why terrible things like java are allowed to exist. We are told: > > - Everyone wants a consistent interface > - You need complicated software to develop software > - You need to go through the university system to be a > programmer > - Stay away from fast-moving platforms (i.e., the living and > active ones with real ideas) > - Don't play with toys; do your work > > Alan Kay has asserted that businesses are not very creative and > are stuck in a rut. He says that the only way to make progress > is to get un-brainwashed minds (mostly children) into the realm > of programming. > > Most programmers have spent most of their time writing the same > code over and over again, and have come to believe that that is > the only way to be productive. Creativity is long-gone. In my > opinion, overcoming the user interface is the least of our > problems; much more difficult is to overcome the ingrained > behavior of sticking with the old, stable, and dead > platforms that have proliferated the programming world. > > Computers are much newer than most people would like to think. > Like Alan Kay said, it took 150 years after the printing press > was invented for newspapers to become common. Before that, they > were only used to do old tasks, like print Bibles. > > Computers today are only used (by most people, businesses, and > programmers) to do old tasks, like communication, documentation, > and art creation. The new ability that computers have, which is > hardly used or even acknowledged, is the ability to think. > Computers and humans together, can think in ways that were > impossible before. Scientists have some understanding of that > ability, but, the more programmers solve the task at hand, the > less we will solve the real problem, which is thinking in a new > way. > > Computer-aided thinking is the problem that Squeak and EToys are > designed to solve. It is pretty much the only system with that > goal in mind, and few people even realize that there is a > problem. This is the real issue that confronts people who are > not familiar with Squeak: understanding that it solves a real > problem. The color scheme is not the issue. > > Thus I think that looking like a toy is a good thing. However, > there is always value in meeting the others halfway, so another > color scheme is a good idea. > > >> Oficial web need's a change, more modern (smalltalk.org too, looks >> like an abandoned project, and the news about the projects are old) ), >> writen in smalltalk. About the logo, I sugggest one time, would be >> interesting thath Squeak take a logo like squeakfoundation. >> > > Yes, the web person recently left, and his position has not been > filled yet. > > >> More developers means (not always but...) more packages, more tools, >> more code, more ideas. And I think we need change some things to get >> this. >> > > Indeed. More developers will be able to help with the > implementation issues, and that is a very good thing. However, > we must not lose sight of the fact that Squeak is, and must be, a > toy that encourages exploration first, and practicality second. > > >> ?What do you think about this? ?How can I/we help with all of this? >> >> I'm sure I'm not the only one with this things in her mind. >> >> Cheers. >> -- >> ::Mi blog:: >> http://blog.lordzealon.com >> >> Linux-User: #370919 >> >> >> > > |
|
|
In reply to this post by Tapple Gao
The "other" kind of thing that "can be played with" is an
"instrument" (musical, wood or metal shaping, etc.). Instruments are partly "mess around toys" and partly "serious toys". And Art enters in when one starts to play on an instrument and around with an instrument. Dan and I had this in mind when we designed and built Smalltalk. Cheers, Alan At 09:57 AM 10/14/2006, Matthew Fulmer wrote: >On Sat, Oct 14, 2006 at 10:41:52AM +0200, Lord ZealoN wrote: > > Well, sometimes I send this to the maillist but never get answers. > > > > I would like to know your opinion about this. > > > > Squeak/Smalltalk is powerful, but for users, or developers in other > > environments (VB, C, Java etc..), looks like a toy. No games on it, No > > "famous" app's. All, etoys for kids and a mouse as logo. I think the > > squeak "world" needs changes, remove pinks colors in the image, and a > > large etc... > >This may get me in trouble, but I will make a bold claim: > >Squeak is a toy. That is a good thing. > >Squeak is a toy, and therefore it looks like a toy. Aversion to >toys is (in my not-so-humble opinion) the worst thing that is >taught to programmers (adults?) today. Playing is the only way >to make new ideas. One must enjoy playing before they can >understand the purpose of Squeak. Until they realize "Squeak is >a Toy, and I am OK with that", they are missing the point. A >clean object memory, simple syntax, and easy debugging are just >implementation issues. The point of Squeak is to have fun >building; after that, everything else falls into place. > >Most programmers (myself included) have been brainwashed by >companies invading the school system with their agenda. That is >why terrible things like java are allowed to exist. We are told: > >- Everyone wants a consistent interface >- You need complicated software to develop software >- You need to go through the university system to be a > programmer >- Stay away from fast-moving platforms (i.e., the living and > active ones with real ideas) >- Don't play with toys; do your work > >Alan Kay has asserted that businesses are not very creative and >are stuck in a rut. He says that the only way to make progress >is to get un-brainwashed minds (mostly children) into the realm >of programming. > >Most programmers have spent most of their time writing the same >code over and over again, and have come to believe that that is >the only way to be productive. Creativity is long-gone. In my >opinion, overcoming the user interface is the least of our >problems; much more difficult is to overcome the ingrained >behavior of sticking with the old, stable, and dead >platforms that have proliferated the programming world. > >Computers are much newer than most people would like to think. >Like Alan Kay said, it took 150 years after the printing press >was invented for newspapers to become common. Before that, they >were only used to do old tasks, like print Bibles. > >Computers today are only used (by most people, businesses, and >programmers) to do old tasks, like communication, documentation, >and art creation. The new ability that computers have, which is >hardly used or even acknowledged, is the ability to think. >Computers and humans together, can think in ways that were >impossible before. Scientists have some understanding of that >ability, but, the more programmers solve the task at hand, the >less we will solve the real problem, which is thinking in a new >way. > >Computer-aided thinking is the problem that Squeak and EToys are >designed to solve. It is pretty much the only system with that >goal in mind, and few people even realize that there is a >problem. This is the real issue that confronts people who are >not familiar with Squeak: understanding that it solves a real >problem. The color scheme is not the issue. > >Thus I think that looking like a toy is a good thing. However, >there is always value in meeting the others halfway, so another >color scheme is a good idea. > > > Oficial web need's a change, more modern (smalltalk.org too, looks > > like an abandoned project, and the news about the projects are old) ), > > writen in smalltalk. About the logo, I sugggest one time, would be > > interesting thath Squeak take a logo like squeakfoundation. > >Yes, the web person recently left, and his position has not been >filled yet. > > > More developers means (not always but...) more packages, more tools, > > more code, more ideas. And I think we need change some things to get > > this. > >Indeed. More developers will be able to help with the >implementation issues, and that is a very good thing. However, >we must not lose sight of the fact that Squeak is, and must be, a >toy that encourages exploration first, and practicality second. > > > ?What do you think about this? ?How can I/we help with all of this? > > > > I'm sure I'm not the only one with this things in her mind. > > > > Cheers. > > -- > > ::Mi blog:: > > http://blog.lordzealon.com > > > > Linux-User: #370919 > > > > > >-- >Matthew Fulmer |
Re: Serious Squeak (other "survey")
|
|
In reply to this post by Tapple Gao
> This may get me in trouble, but I will make a bold claim:
> > Squeak is a toy. That is a good thing. Come on exploration and dynamism is not equal to toy. Squeak is a dynamic environment but this is not a toy. The fact that you interact easily with the objects that populate it does nto mean that this is a toy. > Squeak is a toy, and therefore it looks like a toy. Aversion to > toys is (in my not-so-humble opinion) the worst thing that is > taught to programmers (adults?) today. Playing is the only way > to make new ideas. One must enjoy playing before they can > understand the purpose of Squeak. Until they realize "Squeak is > a Toy, and I am OK with that", they are missing the point. A > clean object memory, simple syntax, and easy debugging are just > implementation issues. The point of Squeak is to have fun > building; after that, everything else falls into place. Lot of code could be much cleaner and we would be able to inent much faster new things. > - Everyone wants a consistent interface Do you want a system where each window has a totally different key binding. Consistency is good. > - You need complicated software to develop software > - You need to go through the university system to be a > programmer Why not, if you can get a nice teacher teaching what you want to learn. I would pay to get the teachers that can teach me what I want to learn. > - Stay away from fast-moving platforms (i.e., the living and > active ones with real ideas) > - Don't play with toys; do your work |
Re: Serious Squeak (other "survey")
|
|
In reply to this post by Tapple Gao
> On Sat, Oct 14, 2006 at 10:41:52AM +0200, Lord ZealoN wrote:
>> Well, sometimes I send this to the maillist but never get answers. >> >> I would like to know your opinion about this. >> >> Squeak/Smalltalk is powerful, but for users, or developers in other >> environments (VB, C, Java etc..), looks like a toy. No games on >> it, No >> "famous" app's. All, etoys for kids and a mouse as logo. I think the >> squeak "world" needs changes, remove pinks colors in the image, and a >> large etc... No serious apps? Well I think I'd call large multinational company payroll systems serious. And major financial systems and a number of big military apps. A non-trivial number of web apps running on Seaside. IIRC LibertyBasic is implemented on Smalltalk. And then there is Squeak, which I consider a pretty serious application, for all it's faults. 'a mouse for a logo' - well, yes and how is that bad compared to a penguin, a coffee cup, a camel or any other logo? I happen to think (but then I'm biased) that it looks pretty damn good on all the books, caps, sweatshirts, badges, tshirts etc that I've been sent. Nobody has done a squeak logo lambourghini to send me yet.... Aside from that I concur very much with what matthew said. tim -- tim Rowledge; [hidden email]; http://www.rowledge.org/tim Useful random insult:- Hypnotized as a child and couldn't be woken. |
Re: Serious Squeak (other "survey")
|
|
In reply to this post by Lord ZealoN
Matthew,
============================= Squeak is a toy, and therefore it looks like a toy. Aversion to toys is (in my not-so-humble opinion) the worst thing that is taught to programmers (adults?) today. Playing is the only way to make new ideas. One must enjoy playing before they can understand the purpose of Squeak. Until they realize "Squeak is a Toy, and I am OK with that", they are missing the point. A clean object memory, simple syntax, and easy debugging are just implementation issues. The point of Squeak is to have fun building; after that, everything else falls into place. ============================= I must disagree, at least in part. Nothing about having the _ability_ to create stuffy/boring/pick your insulting adjective forms-based interfaces, etc., would take away from the ability to evolve and build new and better interfaces. Well, maybe native widgets would hurt it, but having (for example) clerk-friendly morphs would not burden Squeak. Like it or not, sometimes one has to dress the part; that even applies to software, at least if one wants to target certain kinds of users. I will close as I usually do on such matters: look can be important, but the feel of an interface is critical. Bill Wilhelm K. Schwab, Ph.D. University of Florida Department of Anesthesiology PO Box 100254 Gainesville, FL 32610-0254 Email: [hidden email] Tel: (352) 846-1285 FAX: (352) 392-7029 |
Re: Serious Squeak (other "survey")
|
|
In reply to this post by stephane ducasse-2
> Squeak is a toy, and therefore it looks like a toy.
Aversion to To be more precise, I'd say the Squeak Community uses it that way in most cases. Most people here just want to try all kinds of stuff and don't care about the GUI. They use Squeak to experiment because the environment allows you to rapidly develop/try/modify whatever you do which is not the case with all environments. I'd love to see a decent UI in Squeak. How would it impact how you use Squeak? It would have no impact at all but it would definitely attract a new bunch of developers that have issues with Squeak's look. Personally, I do the same things in Dolphin Pro that I do in Squeak. It's just a bit more pleasant in Dolphin since my "experiments" have a "more professionnal" look than they have in Morphic. Having a decent UI wouldn't take the fun out of Squeak... It would just give it more "professionalism" or a more "this is serious stuff" to it and I guess a lot more people would start using it for commercial projects. VisualWorks suffered from the same problem for years... All our clients had issues with the look and feel of our product (it was on 2.5). They were totally pleased with the functionnalities and how easy we could deliver them modifications and new functionalities but the GUI really bogged them. It had that "not really a real Windows UI" kinda perception that made them even consider other "nicer" products that didn't even have a tenth of the functionnalities we had. But for most people (in the commercial world), the UI is the first impression they have of your product and when it looks like Morphic (i.e. really far from a Windows XP look and feel), they don't even go further and see what's "under the hood" only because "it looks crappy" to them... I guess what I'm trying to say is that the UI in Squeak dones't make it a toy... I can experiment as much in VisualAge or Dolphin as in Squeak... It's how you use it that... I can use my iPod for fun but if I use it to hit a nail, does it suddenly become a hammer? ----------------- Benoit St-Jean Yahoo! Messenger: bstjean A standpoint is an intellectual horizon of radius zero. (Albert Einstein) |
Re: Serious Squeak (other "survey")
|
|
Benoit St-Jean puso en su mail :
> I'd love to see a decent UI in Squeak. Again and again the same thing. What is a decent UI ? Like a Windows app ? I could' understand this Lemming behavior. Again for all what think they need this look, go for Zurgle and resurrect it. Edgar __________________________________________________ Preguntá. Respondé. Descubrí. Todo lo que querías saber, y lo que ni imaginabas, está en Yahoo! Respuestas (Beta). ¡Probalo ya! http://www.yahoo.com.ar/respuestas |
Re: Serious Squeak (other "survey")
|
|
No Edgar, you misunderstood me... A decent UI is a UI
that looks native... One to which the user can relate to. That looks like a Mac on a Mac, like Windows on Windows, etc. Now, regardless of the platform, you get Morphic. I personally have nothing against Morphic it's just that it bothers a lot of people and really doesn't help bringing new people onboard. --- "Edgar J. De Cleene" <[hidden email]> wrote: > Benoit St-Jean puso en su mail : > > > I'd love to see a decent UI in Squeak. > Again and again the same thing. > What is a decent UI ? > Like a Windows app ? > I could' understand this Lemming behavior. > Again for all what think they need this look, go for > Zurgle and resurrect > it. > > Edgar > > > > > > > __________________________________________________ > Preguntá. Respondé. Descubrí. > Todo lo que querías saber, y lo que ni imaginabas, > está en Yahoo! Respuestas (Beta). > ¡Probalo ya! > http://www.yahoo.com.ar/respuestas > > > ----------------- Benoit St-Jean Yahoo! Messenger: bstjean A standpoint is an intellectual horizon of radius zero. (Albert Einstein) |
Re: Serious Squeak (other "survey")
|
|
Actually, if the UI was more attractive, it would not have to be
native. I think there are not too many people complaining about Firefox not using native widgets. - Bert - Am 15.10.2006 um 01:15 schrieb Benoit St-Jean: > No Edgar, you misunderstood me... A decent UI is a UI > that looks native... One to which the user can relate > to. That looks like a Mac on a Mac, like Windows on > Windows, etc. > > Now, regardless of the platform, you get Morphic. I > personally have nothing against Morphic it's just that > it bothers a lot of people and really doesn't help > bringing new people onboard. > > --- "Edgar J. De Cleene" <[hidden email]> > wrote: > >> Benoit St-Jean puso en su mail : >> >>> I'd love to see a decent UI in Squeak. >> Again and again the same thing. >> What is a decent UI ? >> Like a Windows app ? >> I could' understand this Lemming behavior. >> Again for all what think they need this look, go for >> Zurgle and resurrect >> it. >> >> Edgar >> >> >> >> >> >> >> __________________________________________________ >> Preguntá. Respondé. Descubrí. >> Todo lo que querías saber, y lo que ni imaginabas, >> está en Yahoo! Respuestas (Beta). >> ¡Probalo ya! >> http://www.yahoo.com.ar/respuestas >> >> >> > > > ----------------- > Benoit St-Jean > Yahoo! Messenger: bstjean > A standpoint is an intellectual horizon of radius zero. > (Albert Einstein) > |
Re: Serious Squeak (other "survey")
|
|
In reply to this post by Benoit St-Jean
On Oct 15, 2006, at 1:15 AM, Benoit St-Jean wrote: > A decent UI is a UI > that looks native... One to which the user can relate > to. That looks like a Mac on a Mac, like Windows on > Windows, etc. I would replace look by feel. I don't mind the graphical look of the app on mac, or windows, or linux. To take mac for example, you have various types of GUIs. Look at iTunes, Mail, Safari (the same is happening with the new microsoft office look and classic windows look...) they all have 3 different looks, some are intented to be one- window-only, others multi-windows ... The common factor to all OSX apps is the feel, the behavior. command+Q quits my app, command+W closes the current window. Take command+C, command+V , they work the same in squeak and my other apps, so squeak integrates (feels) with the other apps. The windowing of Squeak can be weird, especially since most window managers handle windows separately. But I just need to launch Eclipse to see that problem again in a more "mainstream" technology... But I was taught programming with Smalltalk, so I'm not really subjective. I see everything else from a Smalltalk perspective. Yann |
Re: Serious Squeak (other "survey")
|
|
In reply to this post by Benoit St-Jean
Benoit,
> No Edgar, you misunderstood me... A decent UI is a UI > that looks native... One to which the user can relate > to. That looks like a Mac on a Mac, like Windows on > Windows, etc. I think Edgar's question is valid. QuickTime for Windows doesn't look "native" at all, but Windows users seem to be ok with it. (For that matter, Windows Media Player doesn't look like a Windows app at all.) Current Morphic is not geared toward making these "Title-bar and menu-bar at top" apps, and I can imagine it can be a problem for sometime. "Decent UI" is something else. That is why I think Edgar's question, "what is a decent UI" valid. (And I don't know the answer.) -- Yoshiki |
Re: Serious Squeak (other "survey")
|
|
In reply to this post by Benoit St-Jean
On 14-Oct-06, at 4:15 PM, Benoit St-Jean wrote: > No Edgar, you misunderstood me... A decent UI is a UI > that looks native... One to which the user can relate > to. That looks like a Mac on a Mac, like Windows on > Windows, etc. Well my basic response has be 'yuck' because the windows and mac UIs are pretty nasty; I won't offer an opinion on any of the X11 based ones because the last one I saw was a while ago and it looked like a very poor copy of the worst parts of windows. But if you really want host-like UI, try wxSqueak. If you want multiple host windows with the option to draw your own within those windows, try using the Ffenestri code. Come on guys, if this is important to you, put some damn effort into it. tim -- tim Rowledge; [hidden email]; http://www.rowledge.org/tim Strange OpCodes: XO: Execute Operator |
Re: Serious Squeak (other "survey")
|
|
In reply to this post by Lord ZealoN
==========================
Actually, if the UI was more attractive, it would not have to be native. I think there are not too many people complaining about Firefox not using native widgets. - Bert - ========================== Seconded. No offense to wxSqueak (I am especially looking forward to the MVP framework), good looking and (far more important) feeling UI elements do not have to be native. Morphic is a wonderful simulation environment; I simply want to see the community use it to simulate a user friendly interface. I would _prefer_ that it not be native. ========================== Am 15.10.2006 um 01:15 schrieb Benoit St-Jean: > No Edgar, you misunderstood me... A decent UI is a UI > that looks native... One to which the user can relate > to. That looks like a Mac on a Mac, like Windows on > Windows, etc. ========================== That is one definition of "decent" and I cannot argue with it. With that said, I doubt it matters as much as you might think, provided the widgets are recognizable, not overtly ugly (additional points for being attractive in some way), and feel/work the way users have come to expect. ========================== > Now, regardless of the platform, you get Morphic. I > personally have nothing against Morphic it's just that > it bothers a lot of people and really doesn't help > bringing new people onboard. ========================== Again, I doubt the way the pixels get on the screen really matters; otherwise, I agree, especially with the last point. Edgar, you mentioned Zurgle. My main complaint with Zurgle is that it went too far, and that it emulates (IMHO) the ugliest thing ever to be rendered in pixels. I would prefer to see something along the lines of a simplified win2k appearance, and put the extra time into tabbing, keyboard focus, and other feel considerations. Those complaints aside, Zurgle deserves a lot more traction than it has received. Bill Wilhelm K. Schwab, Ph.D. University of Florida Department of Anesthesiology PO Box 100254 Gainesville, FL 32610-0254 Email: [hidden email] Tel: (352) 846-1285 FAX: (352) 392-7029 |
Re: Serious Squeak (other "survey")
|
|
In reply to this post by Lord ZealoN
Tim,
======================================= > No Edgar, you misunderstood me... A decent UI is a UI > that looks native... One to which the user can relate > to. That looks like a Mac on a Mac, like Windows on > Windows, etc. Well my basic response has be 'yuck' because the windows and mac UIs are pretty nasty; I won't offer an opinion on any of the X11 based ones because the last one I saw was a while ago and it looked like a very poor copy of the worst parts of windows. ======================================= No argument there, but some of us do things that require meeting expectations imposed from the outside. To be blunt, I'd expect you would be glad we would like to do it using Squeak. ======================================= But if you really want host-like UI, try wxSqueak. If you want multiple host windows with the option to draw your own within those windows, try using the Ffenestri code. Come on guys, if this is important to you, put some damn effort into it. ======================================= At the risk of sounding a bit hostile, Jim Benson "put some damn effort into it" and was treated horribly IMHO. I know it is not a popular statement (or at least it wasn't the last time I pointed it out), but there is still a glass ceiling in terms of affecting Squeak. If you want people to "put some damn effort" into Squeak, the leaders needs to "put some damn effort" into reviewing their work. Reject it if you will, but do not ignore it. Sorry, but I am convinced that the glass ceiling problem is still very much with us, and that it hurts Squeak more than most realize. If Squeak didn't have so much potential, I'd just walk away, as it is, I bark about this every now and then. Please note that I am very comfortable with folks like Andreas having far more influence than newcomers. I also do not believe there is a conscious effort to exclude new ideas. However, there appears to be no need to review and close submissions, so they get ignored vs. rejected with an explanation. I suspect that many things that have been ignored would be much harder to actively reject with a reason. Sincerely, Bill Wilhelm K. Schwab, Ph.D. University of Florida Department of Anesthesiology PO Box 100254 Gainesville, FL 32610-0254 Email: [hidden email] Tel: (352) 846-1285 FAX: (352) 392-7029 |
Re: Serious Squeak (other "survey")
|
|
On 14-Oct-06, at 5:02 PM, Bill Schwab wrote: [snip] > > No argument there, but some of us do things that require meeting > expectations imposed from the outside. To be blunt, I'd expect you > would be glad we would like to do it using Squeak. Oh absolutely I'd prefer to see people doing it in Squeak, no doubt about that at all. What I dislike intensely is that 'expectations imposed from the outside' bit. The pressure for stultifying, dehumanising unformity is .... well, I dunno. Horrible. > > > ======================================= > But if you really want host-like UI, try wxSqueak. If you want > multiple host windows with the option to draw your own within those > windows, try using the Ffenestri code. Come on guys, if this is > important to you, put some damn effort into it. > ======================================= > > At the risk of sounding a bit hostile, Jim Benson "put some damn > effort > into it" and was treated horribly IMHO. Not by me so far as I recall. I thought it was a valiant effort and I really liked jim's sense of humour too. After all the requests from people for a windows-ish UI suite I thought it was ridiculous that no- one amongst the requestors appeared to want to join in. I loaded it and tried it out but it was more than a bit weird running a windows look on a RISC OS machine! > I know it is not a popular > statement (or at least it wasn't the last time I pointed it out), but > there is still a glass ceiling in terms of affecting Squeak. If you > want people to "put some damn effort" into Squeak, the leaders > needs to > "put some damn effort" into reviewing their work. Reject it if you > will, but do not ignore it. Time, Bill, time. Like most of us I'm swamped most of the time. I get to look at a few of the things I'm interested in and that's it. Mostly I do VM and low level stuff so I look at that and I can't even cover all of that tiny area. Other people claim interest and passion about various aspect of UIs and I can only leave it for them to look at it. I wish I had time to do UI stuff since that is what I originally got my M.Des and IBM fellowship for. Anyone can become a leader. If you have some combination of knowledge, experience, raw talent, drive, interest, persuasiveness, available time, charisma, money... whatever... that adds up to either getting stuff done yourself or getting other people to get stuff done to your design, spec, or wishes you can make a difference. I bet every person that bothers to read this list can summon up at least several of those qualities. tim -- tim Rowledge; [hidden email]; http://www.rowledge.org/tim A clear conscience is usually the sign of a bad memory. |
|
|
In reply to this post by stephane ducasse-2
>From: stephane ducasse <[hidden email]>
>Reply-To: The general-purpose Squeak developers >list<[hidden email]> >To: The general-purpose Squeak developers >list<[hidden email]> >Subject: Re: Serious Squeak (other "survey") >Date: Sat, 14 Oct 2006 19:59:36 +0200 > >>This may get me in trouble, but I will make a bold claim: >> >>Squeak is a toy. That is a good thing. > >Come on exploration and dynamism is not equal to toy. >Squeak is a dynamic environment but this is not a toy. >The fact that you interact easily with the objects that populate it >does nto mean that this is a toy. > Yea, I agree with Alan here. Instrument is a much better word. A toy is something that is *only* for playing. It can't do anything serious or useful, ever. >>- You need complicated software to develop software >>- You need to go through the university system to be a >> programmer > >Why not, if you can get a nice teacher teaching what you want to learn. >I would pay to get the teachers that can teach me what I want to learn. > Yes. And universities are good because they have the best free labor in existance. Not only is the labor free, but the work is done by a pretty smart (and possibly brilliant) person. :) |
«
Return to Squeak - Dev
|
1 view|%1 views
| Free forum by Nabble | Edit this page |