[Pharo-dev] Using Orca for a modern 'sexy' Smalltalk User Interface
serge.stinckwich at gmail.com
serge.stinckwich at gmail.com
Sun Aug 13 08:52:09 EDT 2017
You should have a look to PharoJS that allows you to deploy Pharo app in the browser: https://pharojs.github.io/
PharoJS is fully supported.
Envoyé de mon iPhone
> Le 13 août 2017 à 13:42, Frank-B <frank.berger.software at web.de> a écrit :
> Granted and agreed!
> But that does not explain why it seems that nobody has really used this
> obviously brilliant Orca approach!
> In my view, this Orca approach seems by far 'better' in many respects than
> some pseudo-solutions that expect us to program in the browser (= just
> absurd) and which neglect the gigantic advantages of our Smalltalk IDEs over
> Any Smalltalker who has ever tried to develop a bigger piece of JavsScript
> code (like I did) must have been disgusted by the stone-age status of the
> available tools and should welcome the availability to develop client-server
> solution entirely in Smalltalk.
> And today, with the availability of WebSockets, there should even be far
> better ways of having an Orca-based client communicate with a Smalltalk
> driven server on a message-passing level. It seems that WebSockets have not
> been used in Orca in 2011 and before, but it should not be problem to add
> Further, I see TIRADE by Göran Krampe
> http://goran.krampe.se/category/tirade/ as another useful addition.
> But most importantly, Orca should be the basis for a much better alternative
> to this (in my view) insane, ugly and very slow Seaside.
> Orca is the perfect tool to create a modern and entirely browser-based user
> interface with ONE single source code for browser AND desktop based
> Smalltalk driven applications.
> This would overcome our (Smalltalk in general) greatest deficiency and that
> has always been the user-interface, which is the by far most decisive
> success factor for every application software today.
> Look at the *Smalltalk UI status*, which for me is still nothing but a
> Desk-top only UI definitions exist in *VA and Dolphin* where Dolphin is at
> least close to what most users consider and expect as the standard and that
> is, if we like it or not, Windows.
> The same is true for VW where the *VisualWorks UI* is internally totally
> insane, undocumented, old-fashioned in many aspects, not multi-lingual at
> all (despite their claims), 'polling', it’s simply “kaputt” from the very
> *Squeak’s UI* is out of any discussion and *Pharo‘s UI* is somewhat more
> modern but miles away from what end-users expect and tolerate, not to
> mention what they would love as an application UI.
> Having separate UI code for the desk-top and the browser is a sick idea
> anyway and therefore NO Smalltalk today is really suitable for developing
> modern, end-user friendly, simply “sexy” user interfaces.
> I have always been convinced that the total absence of a 'good UI' in
> Smalltalk for desk-top and browser has been *the major reason for
> Smalltalk's failure* to attract a large and prefessional (developers of
> wide-spread standard software) user-base, apart from the greed [Goldberg]
> and arrogance towards the UI and the absurd licensing conditions and
> price-wishes of the early managers not only at ParcPlace but also at their
> successors (some of their licencing is rather slavery).
> Shouldn't we finally change this sad situation?
> Sent from the Pharo Smalltalk Developers mailing list archive at Nabble.com.
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
More information about the Pharo-dev