lost funktions in vwnc v.8.0
Locked
 
|
Hello group,
after downloading vwnc 8.0 Cincom asked me compulsory to tell
my experiences with the new version. Because it may be interesting
for the group as well, I forward my answers to you.
Dear madam or sir,
thank you for your kind inquiry. Actually i am using
VisualWorks and his ancestors since many years (starting with ST80
V2.5, early 1990th) and was impressed from the very beginning and
still today. After visiting Georg Heeg in Dortmund in 1991 our
team had the impression that every behavior of the system was
well considered and not one was by accident or due to
restrictions of the system.
Since then I had some small or big projects. Only private and
in intervals of about 2 to 10 years. Because of the long downtimes
in using VisualWorks I am very sensible to changes of the system,
especially when they concern tools or behavior which disappeared
unfortunately with the versions of vw. Here is my list of lost
functions:
1."again" (I mean this menue entry in :
copy/cut/paste/again) disappeared, I think with version 5i. For
details see below.
2. User placement does not work proper with osx, I
don't know since when. There was a thread about this in our
group.
3. The views do not remember the last used entry in a
context menue since v 8.0. For details see below.
4. The result of "printIt" is not longer
highlighted since v 8.0. For details see below.
5. Mouse operate menue item "explain" missed.
There is one new function available that I like and which is in
the spirit of the lost functions above: When I type a (double)
quote in the system browsers code window, two (double) quotes are
produced and the cursor is placed between them. This is really
fine!
With my reply I hope to convince the developer team to bring
the lost functions back, and moreover to encourage the team to tie
in the developing tools of the former versions in terms of most
working efficiency by multifunctional / "polymorph" tools and by
reducing number of clicks and mouse pointer targeting - that also
produce most satisfaction for the user :-) .
Thank you for your open ear,
Regards, Bernhard Hoefner,
Frankfurt
Details, for those who don't know or do not remember the tools:
1. again:
again was like "redo", but multifunctional. "again" was very
efficient when used with text replacement: you highlighted a text
and typed your replacement. When you wanted to replace the next
occurrence of the wrong text too, you used <operate>"again"
(and because the view reminded the last used menue entry (see
point 3) you only hat to press and release the operate mouse
button). There was an option in "again" to replace texts for the
whole file. "again" worked as well with control characters like
<crlf>! The system was very efficient because it worked with
a minimum of mouse clicks / mouse pointer positioning. The code
still seems to remain in the system (UI.ParagraphEditor,
UI.MenueBuilder) and in previous vw versions I reanimated it, but
I forgot the lever to do and I think it should be included in the
menue officially.
2. user placement:
I liked user placement and I think others too. The result of
the former discussion in the group was, that this is not gone
because of a "well considered decision" in the vw developing team,
but because of problems of the UI of osx. But why does the
user placement works with some osx-windows, with others not? When
I think about our talk with Hans-Martin Mosner in 1991(see
above)... times are changing.
3. views remember last menue selection:
this means that the cursor is placed automatically at the last
used menue item. In the original UI the cursor was placed in
that menue item and you only had to release the mouse operate
button after pressing it to open the context menue (this behavior
was softened in the MS-WINDOWS-UI). That means: no need for
positioning mouse pointer to a menue item, when you know
that you need the same operate-function as last time (no mouse
positioning is precondition to move an action from conscious to
automated action! -> more efficiency, less mind strain). Each
window had its own "menue item cache". As example I use the
copy/paste procedure between two text-windows. Since there is the
standard "<ctrl><c>/<ctrl><v>" keyboard
shortcut, this is not needed such much, but it shows very
good,what I mean: when you have to copy different parts of text
from one window to another, you highlight the first part in window
one and select <operate>-"copy". Move to window two, select
<operate>-"paste". For the next text part you had only to
highlight the text to copy in window one, then press and direct
release the <operate> button (->copy). Click to target
position in window two, press and release <operate> button
(->paste). The behavior was also very useful in combination
with the "again" menue item. The advantage of point 3 and point 1
was the multi functionality. It is like the advantage of
polymorphism.
4. Auto highlight of "printIt" result:
Until v 8.0 the result of "printIt" was highlighted. This
means, that you had to press the <backspace>-button only
once to delete that printIt-result. For example this was very
useful when you tested parts of code inside a message text. With
one <backspace> you came back to the original message text.
5. Mouse operate menue item "explain":
When you highlighted a keyword or message in a system browsers
code window, the <operate>-explain" gave an explanation of
the highlighted message. The explanation was printed direct behind
the highlighted text (like it is still with "printIt") and was
completely highlighted. With one <backspace> you deleted the
explanation an came back to the original text (compare point 4).
_______________________________________________ vwnc mailing list [hidden email] http://lists.cs.uiuc.edu/mailman/listinfo/vwnc |
Re: lost funktions in vwnc v.8.0
|
|
Hi Bernard,
> On 9 Apr 2015, at 18:32, Bernhard Hoefner <[hidden email]> wrote: > > 2. user placement: > I liked user placement and I think others too. The result of the former discussion in the group was, that this is not gone because of a "well considered decision" in the vw developing team, but because of problems of the UI of osx. This was a well considered decision - neither OS X nor Windows apps work like this. Some X11 window managers give the user an option to place windows manually, but the feature doesn't belong within VW. Cheers, Antony Blakey -------------------------- Ph: +61 438 840 787 To remain silent and indifferent is the greatest sin of all. -- Elie Wiesel _______________________________________________ vwnc mailing list [hidden email] http://lists.cs.uiuc.edu/mailman/listinfo/vwnc |
Re: lost funktions in vwnc v.8.0
|
|
What about ScheduledWindow openNewIn: Rectangle fromUser It works as far as I know. Cheers, Björn On Thu, Apr 9, 2015 at 2:43 PM, Antony Blakey <[hidden email]> wrote: Hi Bernard, _______________________________________________ vwnc mailing list [hidden email] http://lists.cs.uiuc.edu/mailman/listinfo/vwnc |
Re: lost funktions in vwnc v.8.0
|
|
Hi Björn,
> On 9 Apr 2015, at 22:38, Björn Eiderbäck <[hidden email]> wrote: > > What about > ScheduledWindow openNewIn: Rectangle fromUser > > It works as far as I know. As it should. The 'user placement' option was a setting that meant that all windows were placed by the user by default. That setting is what has been removed. You can still do it manually. Cheers, Antony Blakey -------------------------- Ph: +61 438 840 787 Man will never be free until the last king is strangled with the entrails of the last priest. -- Denis Diderot _______________________________________________ vwnc mailing list [hidden email] http://lists.cs.uiuc.edu/mailman/listinfo/vwnc |
Re: lost funktions in vwnc v.8.0
|
|
A, now I remember that "feature". So if one want it one could maybe hack a little bit and achieve the same effect... On Thu, Apr 9, 2015 at 4:49 PM, Antony Blakey <[hidden email]> wrote: Hi Björn, _______________________________________________ vwnc mailing list [hidden email] http://lists.cs.uiuc.edu/mailman/listinfo/vwnc |
Re: lost funktions in vwnc v.8.0
|
|
In reply to this post by Antony Blakey-5
Hello Antony,
when this was a well considered decision, then it is not a good reference for the developers who implemented this decision: 1. The option "user placement" can still be selected in "Settings" 2. With OSX it try to work for "file Browser" (but beyond all bearing), for System Browser the option has no effect at all. But to go deeper: what should lead the development: the insufficient UI of an operating system or the awareness of the optimal way to work with windows? Regards Bernhard Antony, I try to live with less sins as defined by Elie Wiesel. Am 09.04.2015 um 14:43 schrieb Antony Blakey <[hidden email]>: Hi Bernard,On 9 Apr 2015, at 18:32, Bernhard Hoefner <[hidden email]> wrote: _______________________________________________ vwnc mailing list [hidden email] http://lists.cs.uiuc.edu/mailman/listinfo/vwnc |
Re: lost funktions in vwnc v.8.0
|
|
To contribute another opinion on that:
I think that you should separate developer needs from end user needs. While I agree that user defined placement is not made for the end user of our application, I as the developer of the application can profit a lot of e.g. user placement. I have a two monitor setup and it can be very practical and time saving to open a new browser or debugger on what monitor and where I want it to be placed in relation to the application windows, and of which size. The last position I opened a browser or debugger might not be the best choice for the next time. Moving and then resizing windows after opening all the time is unnecessary and time consuming, if I can have it all in one step. I want to strengthen the point that Cincom should not see Visualworks as their end user application and only provide features that are relevant for end user applications. Visualworks as "application" is a development environment for developers where other features might make sense, that have nothing to do with the features that these developers provide in the real end user applications they develop. So Visualworks must provide both, all the features that developers need for the end user, and it must also have (maybe different) features for the developers to help them develop applications the best they can. And, as Visualworks/Smalltalk user for decades now, you just get used to these features and missing them slows you down. And slowing down a developer costs money ;-) Some features seem awkward in the beginning, but once you get used to them, you see the profit. I can imagine that Cincom wants to make Visualworks attractive for new users and adopt the standards so users (end users or developers as end users?) feel comfortable. But as often, non-standard doesn't mean that it doesn't make sense. Thomas Trying to reduce my own sins ;-) Am 09.04.2015 um 22:07 schrieb Bernhard Höfner: Hello Antony, _______________________________________________ vwnc mailing list [hidden email] http://lists.cs.uiuc.edu/mailman/listinfo/vwnc |
Re: lost funktions in vwnc v.8.0
|
|
Hello Thomas,
many thanks for your answer. You wrote what I felt but wasn't able to explain. VisualWorks advertise to be the most comfortable and efficient developing tool and I think they are right. One of the (or the only?) reasons is, that the developers of VisualWorks themself used its ancestors to develop Smalltalk / VisualWorks. So they knew how to make ST80 most efficient and they made it most efficient. Finally because it is in the human nature to improve his working environment. This makes him happy, efficient working tools are the precondition for flow and satisfaction. What about a choice in the "settings"-tool for "end user" or "developer"? And for developer mode: don't throw any of the nice effincient tools that the first smalltalk engineers created. They did it really well considered. And I like to enjoy further the flow, when I am using VisualWorks. Regards, Bernhard Am 10.04.2015 um 10:06 schrieb Thomas
Brodt:
To contribute another opinion on that: _______________________________________________ vwnc mailing list [hidden email] http://lists.cs.uiuc.edu/mailman/listinfo/vwnc |
Re: lost funktions in vwnc v.8.0
|
|
These comments are my PERSONAL OPINION, not official GUI/Tools team position (let alone Cincom official position). And in any case, this being vwnc (rather than vw-dev) I can't speak about Visualworks plans.
I currently live in emacs for everything (including using eshell etc). All my Visualworks, Packer, Vagrant etc tooling is in emacs, with support for remote VW testing/invocation/scripting over multiple machines, multiple images, releases, word sizes, done in elisp. As a heavy emacs user I (by definition) understand the idiosyncrasies of developer vs. end-user tooling. We developers tolerate non-standard UI that increases our productivity because we live in our tools, and the cost-benefit of the learning curve and cognitive dissonance with the native platform is positive. And as a long-term (and current) Lisp/Haskell et al developer I appreciate that popular != best. But I would contend that this: "But to go deeper: what should lead the development: the insufficient UI of an operating system or the awareness of the optimal way to work with windows?" is not 'true'. That is not the 'optimal' way to work with windows in any objective sense, and hence can't be ascribed to the failure of the UI. In fact I think that window placement using the mouse is highly suboptimal. In fact, just about any use of the mouse is suboptimal *from a mechanical perspective*. Personally I use a tiling approach on OS X, and have some Mjolnir configuration that lets me arrange and place the windows of any application using key commands. I urge you to check out https://github.com/sdegutis/mjolnir. I am happy to share my customisation with anyone. I also don't think that the original ST80 is a great model for efficiency. We shouldn't fetishise ST80, or it's inventors. IMO both the language and the environment should change to take advantage of new information, research, habits, underlying integration, standards, and technology. Namespaces are a good example of language improvement (and there are many more I would like - better literals, implicit receivers, shortcut block args, even lisp-style macros - heresy!). IMO ST80 is not a perfect jewel that cannot be improved. And therein lies some conflict between those who would like ST to be upgraded only in order to interoperate with new technology, versus those (like me) who would like the technology to evolve. > On 10 Apr 2015, at 22:32, Bernhard Hoefner <[hidden email]> wrote: > > Hello Thomas, > many thanks for your answer. You wrote what I felt but wasn't able to explain. > VisualWorks advertise to be the most comfortable and efficient developing tool and I think they are right. One of the (or the only?) reasons is, that the developers of VisualWorks themself used its ancestors to develop Smalltalk / VisualWorks. So they knew how to make ST80 most efficient and they made it most efficient. Finally because it is in the human nature to improve his working environment. This makes him happy, efficient working tools are the precondition for flow and satisfaction. > What about a choice in the "settings"-tool for "end user" or "developer"? And for developer mode: don't throw any of the nice effincient tools that the first smalltalk engineers created. They did it really well considered. And I like to enjoy further the flow, when I am using VisualWorks. > > Regards, > Bernhard > > Am 10.04.2015 um 10:06 schrieb Thomas Brodt: >> To contribute another opinion on that: >> I think that you should separate developer needs from end user needs. While I agree that user defined placement is not made for the end user of our application, I as the developer of the application can profit a lot of e.g. user placement. I have a two monitor setup and it can be very practical and time saving to open a new browser or debugger on what monitor and where I want it to be placed in relation to the application windows, and of which size. The last position I opened a browser or debugger might not be the best choice for the next time. Moving and then resizing windows after opening all the time is unnecessary and time consuming, if I can have it all in one step. >> >> I want to strengthen the point that Cincom should not see Visualworks as their end user application and only provide features that are relevant for end user applications. >> Visualworks as "application" is a development environment for developers where other features might make sense, that have nothing to do with the features that these developers provide in the real end user applications they develop. >> >> So Visualworks must provide both, all the features that developers need for the end user, and it must also have (maybe different) features for the developers to help them develop applications the best they can. >> >> And, as Visualworks/Smalltalk user for decades now, you just get used to these features and missing them slows you down. And slowing down a developer costs money ;-) Some features seem awkward in the beginning, but once you get used to them, you see the profit. I can imagine that Cincom wants to make Visualworks attractive for new users and adopt the standards so users (end users or developers as end users?) feel comfortable. But as often, non-standard doesn't mean that it doesn't make sense. >> >> Thomas >> >> Trying to reduce my own sins ;-) >> >> Am 09.04.2015 um 22:07 schrieb Bernhard Höfner: >>> Hello Antony, >>> when this was a well considered decision, then it is not a good reference for the developers who implemented this decision: >>> 1. The option "user placement" can still be selected in "Settings" >>> 2. With OSX it try to work for "file Browser" (but beyond all bearing), for System Browser the option has no effect at all. >>> >>> But to go deeper: what should lead the development: the insufficient UI of an operating system or the awareness of the optimal way to work with windows? >>> >>> Regards Bernhard >>> >>> Antony, I try to live with less sins as defined by Elie Wiesel. >>> >>> Am 09.04.2015 um 14:43 schrieb Antony Blakey <[hidden email]>: >>> >>>> Hi Bernard, >>>> >>>>> On 9 Apr 2015, at 18:32, Bernhard Hoefner <[hidden email]> wrote: >>>>> >>>>> 2. user placement: >>>>> I liked user placement and I think others too. The result of the former discussion in the group was, that this is not gone because of a "well considered decision" in the vw developing team, but because of problems of the UI of osx. >>>> >>>> This was a well considered decision - neither OS X nor Windows apps work like this. Some X11 window managers give the user an option to place windows manually, but the feature doesn't belong within VW. >>>> >>>> Cheers, >>>> >>>> Antony Blakey >>>> -------------------------- >>>> Ph: +61 438 840 787 >>>> >>>> To remain silent and indifferent is the greatest sin of all. >>>> -- Elie Wiesel >>> >>> >>> >>> _______________________________________________ >>> vwnc mailing list >>> >>> [hidden email] >>> http://lists.cs.uiuc.edu/mailman/listinfo/vwnc >> >> >> >> _______________________________________________ >> vwnc mailing list >> >> [hidden email] >> http://lists.cs.uiuc.edu/mailman/listinfo/vwnc > > _______________________________________________ > vwnc mailing list > [hidden email] > http://lists.cs.uiuc.edu/mailman/listinfo/vwnc Antony Blakey -------------------------- Ph: +61 438 840 787 A reasonable man adapts himself to suit his environment. An unreasonable man persists in attempting to adapt his environment to suit himself. Therefore, all progress depends on the unreasonable man. -- George Bernard Shaw _______________________________________________ vwnc mailing list [hidden email] http://lists.cs.uiuc.edu/mailman/listinfo/vwnc |
«
Return to VisualWorks
|
1 view|%1 views
| Free forum by Nabble | Edit this page |