Usability and look-and-feel (was Re: [squeak-dev] The future of Squeak & Pharo (was Re: [Pharo-project] [ANN] Pharo MIT license clean))

> Juan Vuletich wrote:
>> If we ever build enough momentum, may I suggest using Cuis as the
>> first target of such efforts? If that happened Cuis could become the
>> basis for this new Squeak.
>
> Hey, what is the homepage of Cuis? Do you have one? :) I downloaded it
> yesterday but was looking for more "words" about it. But I should fire
> it up of course and take a look.
>
> regards, Göran

> -----Mensaje original-----
> De: [hidden email]
> [mailto:[hidden email]] En
> nombre de Ramon Leon
> Enviado el: Wednesday, July 01, 2009 01:19
> Para: The general-purpose Squeak developers list
> Asunto: Re: Usability and look-and-feel (was Re: [squeak-dev]
> The future of Squeak & Pharo (was Re: [Pharo-project] [ANN]
> Pharo MIT licenseclean))
>
> > Bert, are you serious?
> >
> > Enough with the children! It's been done and redone and
> overdone. The
> > past and the future confounded. Why can't we live the
> present living?
> > You're talking about something that might (or might not) produce
> > engineers in the next, say, 20 years? Smalltalk will be around 50
> > years by then. I find it painful that our community wouldn't be a
> > little bit more practical, for a change..
> >
> > Right here, right now.
> >
> > Ian.
> >
> > PS: I am so sorry... I don't even have spare children to furiously
> > train on Squeak...
> >
> > --
> > http://mecenia.blogspot.com/
>
> +10
>
> Seriously, stop talking about kids, who cares, I'll be retired by the
> time they're useful.  Programming languages are tools that are
> primarily used by and useful for adults, they should be aimed at
> adults.  I want Smalltalk to be usable now, not at some unspecified
> time in some imaginary future where it takes over the world by getting
> kids before they've been introduced to other environments.  It's pure
> fantasy to think this'll happen, it won't.  This is the attitude that
> holds Squeak back and prevents anyone from taking it too seriously.
> This is why Pharo will continue to steal mind-share and Squeak will
> die.
>
> Ramon Leon
> http://onsmalltalk.com
>

> +1 too.
>
> Credit:
> Squeak suffers from being hardly coupled with something that is  
> intentionally
> good hearted, theoretically well supported and it genuinely deserves  
> credit for
> that. But time told it was a poor design. It won't help to deny  
> reality. In
> practice it didn't work well. Is not that it was completely useless.  
> It solves a
> problem but is not the expected breakthrough. And there are reasons  
> for that.
> Make space in your mind to stop ignoring those.
>
> Price:
> The price the project (paid by its comunity) for soving that problem  
> became
> unacceptably high and that's why the current crisis happened.
>
> UI without sense:
> Squeak make countless undeniable and unjustifiable violations to UI  
> design and
> usability principles. I mean BASIC ones. Please stop rationalizing  
> on theoretic
> stuff that didn't work. Prioritize what did work (inside and outside  
> ST
> universe). Hint: there is iphone and the rest of the world. Honour  
> design
> principles or stop self lying about who can use your stuff. Decide  
> if you want
> to make software for human beings or damn engeneers/geeks.
>
> Oprtunity:
> Do less to do more. I see Squeak has proved to be extremely fertile.  
> If Squeak
> gets unbloated of features it can focus in doing less much much  
> better and
> profit from what is good at: fertile to fast implementing models.
> But today nobody want just models. Those are easy. What people wants  
> is
> convenience. Convenient interfaces with sense. So the oportunity for  
> squeak
> would be to do that in interfaces that totally rock. Is not the art  
> of the
> buttons or window borders. Is not adding features. Actually removing  
> some will
> make it better. But is a lot more than that. Smalltalkers are known  
> by its
> design capabilities? other comunities do. Hear how they think.  
> Learn. Reinvent.
>
> Sustainability:
> If a project do not have one clear mission, it will consume any  
> momentum fast
> while being unable to make rapport with any tribe to renew efforts.  
> It could had
> value to prove some theory, but in the end (today) who cares? for  
> other pruposes
> it will be invisible: #fail.
> Stop making artifacts that makes you beg for tolerance about UI (AKA
> manuals/education?) crying with colleagues becaouse people "don't  
> get it". Is
> not their fault! Instead do something that is worth to put money  
> into it.
> Something inspiring. Something worthy to talk about (with smalltalk  
> outsiders).
>
> Sorry if this sounds hard but honest feedback is more valuable than  
> water with
> sugar.
>
> sebastian
>
>> -----Mensaje original-----
>> De: [hidden email]
>> [mailto:[hidden email]] En
>> nombre de Ramon Leon
>> Enviado el: Wednesday, July 01, 2009 01:19
>> Para: The general-purpose Squeak developers list
>> Asunto: Re: Usability and look-and-feel (was Re: [squeak-dev]
>> The future of Squeak & Pharo (was Re: [Pharo-project] [ANN]
>> Pharo MIT licenseclean))
>>
>>> Bert, are you serious?
>>>
>>> Enough with the children! It's been done and redone and
>> overdone. The
>>> past and the future confounded. Why can't we live the
>> present living?
>>> You're talking about something that might (or might not) produce
>>> engineers in the next, say, 20 years? Smalltalk will be around 50
>>> years by then. I find it painful that our community wouldn't be a
>>> little bit more practical, for a change..
>>>
>>> Right here, right now.
>>>
>>> Ian.
>>>
>>> PS: I am so sorry... I don't even have spare children to furiously
>>> train on Squeak...
>>>
>>> --
>>> http://mecenia.blogspot.com/
>>
>> +10
>>
>> Seriously, stop talking about kids, who cares, I'll be retired by the
>> time they're useful.  Programming languages are tools that are
>> primarily used by and useful for adults, they should be aimed at
>> adults.  I want Smalltalk to be usable now, not at some unspecified
>> time in some imaginary future where it takes over the world by  
>> getting
>> kids before they've been introduced to other environments.  It's pure
>> fantasy to think this'll happen, it won't.  This is the attitude that
>> holds Squeak back and prevents anyone from taking it too seriously.
>> This is why Pharo will continue to steal mind-share and Squeak will
>> die.
>>
>> Ramon Leon
>> http://onsmalltalk.com
>>
>
>

> -----Mensaje original-----
> De: [hidden email]
> [mailto:[hidden email]] En
> nombre de Bert Freudenberg
> Enviado el: Thursday, July 02, 2009 14:23
> Para: The general-purpose Squeak developers list
> Asunto: Re: Usability and look-and-feel (was Re: [squeak-dev]
> The future ofSqueak & Pharo (was Re: [Pharo-project] [ANN]
> Pharo MIT licenseclean))
>
> I have no idea where the myth comes from that the look of Squeak's  
> Smalltalk development tools has anything whatsoever to do
> with Etoys,  
> but anyhow it would be a good idea to stop spreading it.
>
> "Usability and look-and-feel" is what this thread is about so  
> constructive ideas (or even better code and designs) are
> welcome, but  
> blaming it on Etoys is just cheap.
>
> - Bert -
>
> On 02.07.2009, at 19:09, Sebastian Sastre wrote:
>
> > +1 too.
> >
> > Credit:
> > Squeak suffers from being hardly coupled with something that is  
> > intentionally
> > good hearted, theoretically well supported and it genuinely
> deserves  
> > credit for
> > that. But time told it was a poor design. It won't help to deny  
> > reality. In
> > practice it didn't work well. Is not that it was completely
> useless.  
> > It solves a
> > problem but is not the expected breakthrough. And there are
> reasons  
> > for that.
> > Make space in your mind to stop ignoring those.
> >
> > Price:
> > The price the project (paid by its comunity) for soving
> that problem  
> > became
> > unacceptably high and that's why the current crisis happened.
> >
> > UI without sense:
> > Squeak make countless undeniable and unjustifiable
> violations to UI  
> > design and
> > usability principles. I mean BASIC ones. Please stop rationalizing  
> > on theoretic
> > stuff that didn't work. Prioritize what did work (inside
> and outside  
> > ST
> > universe). Hint: there is iphone and the rest of the world. Honour  
> > design
> > principles or stop self lying about who can use your stuff. Decide  
> > if you want
> > to make software for human beings or damn engeneers/geeks.
> >
> > Oprtunity:
> > Do less to do more. I see Squeak has proved to be extremely
> fertile.  
> > If Squeak
> > gets unbloated of features it can focus in doing less much much  
> > better and
> > profit from what is good at: fertile to fast implementing models.
> > But today nobody want just models. Those are easy. What
> people wants  
> > is
> > convenience. Convenient interfaces with sense. So the
> oportunity for  
> > squeak
> > would be to do that in interfaces that totally rock. Is not
> the art  
> > of the
> > buttons or window borders. Is not adding features. Actually
> removing  
> > some will
> > make it better. But is a lot more than that. Smalltalkers
> are known  
> > by its
> > design capabilities? other comunities do. Hear how they think.  
> > Learn. Reinvent.
> >
> > Sustainability:
> > If a project do not have one clear mission, it will consume any  
> > momentum fast
> > while being unable to make rapport with any tribe to renew
> efforts.  
> > It could had
> > value to prove some theory, but in the end (today) who cares? for  
> > other pruposes
> > it will be invisible: #fail.
> > Stop making artifacts that makes you beg for tolerance about UI (AKA
> > manuals/education?) crying with colleagues becaouse people "don't  
> > get it". Is
> > not their fault! Instead do something that is worth to put money  
> > into it.
> > Something inspiring. Something worthy to talk about (with
> smalltalk  
> > outsiders).
> >
> > Sorry if this sounds hard but honest feedback is more
> valuable than  
> > water with
> > sugar.
> >
> > sebastian
> >
> >> -----Mensaje original-----
> >> De: [hidden email]
> >> [mailto:[hidden email]] En
> >> nombre de Ramon Leon
> >> Enviado el: Wednesday, July 01, 2009 01:19
> >> Para: The general-purpose Squeak developers list
> >> Asunto: Re: Usability and look-and-feel (was Re: [squeak-dev]
> >> The future of Squeak & Pharo (was Re: [Pharo-project] [ANN]
> >> Pharo MIT licenseclean))
> >>
> >>> Bert, are you serious?
> >>>
> >>> Enough with the children! It's been done and redone and
> >> overdone. The
> >>> past and the future confounded. Why can't we live the
> >> present living?
> >>> You're talking about something that might (or might not) produce
> >>> engineers in the next, say, 20 years? Smalltalk will be around 50
> >>> years by then. I find it painful that our community wouldn't be a
> >>> little bit more practical, for a change..
> >>>
> >>> Right here, right now.
> >>>
> >>> Ian.
> >>>
> >>> PS: I am so sorry... I don't even have spare children to furiously
> >>> train on Squeak...
> >>>
> >>> --
> >>> http://mecenia.blogspot.com/
> >>
> >> +10
> >>
> >> Seriously, stop talking about kids, who cares, I'll be
> retired by the
> >> time they're useful.  Programming languages are tools that are
> >> primarily used by and useful for adults, they should be aimed at
> >> adults.  I want Smalltalk to be usable now, not at some unspecified
> >> time in some imaginary future where it takes over the world by  
> >> getting
> >> kids before they've been introduced to other environments.
>  It's pure
> >> fantasy to think this'll happen, it won't.  This is the
> attitude that
> >> holds Squeak back and prevents anyone from taking it too seriously.
> >> This is why Pharo will continue to steal mind-share and Squeak will
> >> die.
> >>
> >> Ramon Leon
> >> http://onsmalltalk.com
> >>
> >
> >
>
>
>
>

> Igor Stasenko wrote:
>>
>> In same way, i heard from multiple people here, when i asked: why you
>> never try/use Pharo , the answer was:
>>  - i can't use OB, it is alien to me.
>> What is interesting, that as to me, the default Squeak browser and OB
>> are pretty much the same.
>> So there is another side of this: an inertia of people who mastered
>> something & using it , and don't see any reasons why things need to be
>> changed in any way.
>
> I think this particular question may have a different answer. I tried OB on
> Pharo when I was looking into some FFI troubles. The main noticable
> difference was *incredible* sluggishness. Every single action was greeted
> with a 2-5 seconds pause. I kid you not. Granted, my computer isn't exactly
> the fastest, but those were all actions where with the regular Squeak
> browser I feel no noticable delay whatsoever.
>
> The other thing I noticed was that OB did not come across as very robust.
> Several trivial actions (like opening a context menu in the code pane) would
> just blow up.
>
> If I'd have to guess, then the sluggishness of OB is a major hindrance in
> its acceptance. As you say, since the browsers are so similar there is
> really little reason to choose the slow one ;-)
>

> Andreas Raab wrote:
>
>> I tried OB on
>> Pharo when I was looking into some FFI troubles. The main noticable
>> difference was *incredible* sluggishness. Every single action was greeted
>> with a 2-5 seconds pause. I kid you not. Granted, my computer isn't exactly
>> the fastest, but those were all actions where with the regular Squeak
>> browser I feel no noticable delay whatsoever.
>
> I used a 2 GHz Intel processor, and got a delay of around a second
> every time I opened a new browser window in pharo-dev 0.1.   (I used
> the OB clones of the standard browsers - not any of the new browsers
> or undocumented new features.  Also, I don't know if other images
> perform better.)
>
> To satisfy my curiosity, could someone point me to the results of any
> code profiling done on this issue?
>

> Igor Stasenko wrote:
>
>>>> I tried OB on
>>>> Pharo when I was looking into some FFI troubles. The main noticable
>>>> difference was *incredible* sluggishness. Every single action was greeted
>>>> with a 2-5 seconds pause. I kid you not.
> ...
>> I've seen a discussion , related to this in Pharo list and related to
>> improving the speed.
>
> Igor, I saw your February post, so I see the low-hanging fruit has
> been harvested:
> http://lists.gforge.inria.fr/pipermail/pharo-project/2009-February/005188.html
>

> Andreas Raab wrote:
>
>> I tried OB on
>> Pharo when I was looking into some FFI troubles. The main noticable
>> difference was *incredible* sluggishness. Every single action was  
>> greeted
>> with a 2-5 seconds pause. I kid you not. Granted, my computer isn't  
>> exactly
>> the fastest, but those were all actions where with the regular Squeak
>> browser I feel no noticable delay whatsoever.
>
> I used a 2 GHz Intel processor, and got a delay of around a second
> every time I opened a new browser window in pharo-dev 0.1.   (I used
> the OB clones of the standard browsers - not any of the new browsers
> or undocumented new features.  Also, I don't know if other images
> perform better.)

> David Corking wrote:
>> I used a 2 GHz Intel processor, and got a delay of around a second
>> every time I opened a new browser window in pharo-dev 0.1.   (I used
>> the OB clones of the standard browsers - not any of the new browsers
>> or undocumented new features.  Also, I don't know if other images
>> perform better.)
>>
>> To satisfy my curiosity, could someone point me to the results of any
>> code profiling done on this issue?
>
> I haven't done any real profiling. But here is a starting point:
>
> [ToolSet default browse: Behavior selector: nil] timeToRun.
>
> On my box this takes 506 msecs in Squeak 3.10, using Pharo it's at 5020
> msecs. That's 10x slower.
>
> Cheers,
>   - Andreas
>
>