[Pharo-users] Question about Morphic in Pharo 4
estebanlm at gmail.com
Fri Dec 19 11:55:15 EST 2014
if I can say it, I think Spec has several design flaws, that prevent us to actually use it productively.
1st: I believe Spec is 80% of what Morphic should do by it self, but since is now that monster no body wants to take by the horns, Spec provides a layer.
2nd: The original idea of Spec is to produce composable objects that can be some-kind described and then reused by plugging them, but
- is an idea that has a lot of sense is we have a UI builder… which we dont. 2
- the metadata itself is not very well defined (I would like something like the ones in VW and StX, but is like a weird array right now), because of this, Spec has created some “in the middle” way to define specs in a more “declarative way”, breaking the original design (the one I just pointed)
3rd: Frankly, with this “more declarative way” spec adopted more or less the same path glamour took. But if this is the point, glamour does a really better work on the “declarative” part. Of course, it does that at the cost of being less reusable, but well… we are talking about Spec, not Glaour here :)
So, to summarise, IMHO:
- Spec wouldn’t have much sense in a well-defined, clean, Morphic
- Even as a layer, Spec still does not has much sense without:
-- a rebuild of the descriptive model
-- an UI builder to use it.
> On 19 Dec 2014, at 17:32, nacho <0800nacho at gmail.com> wrote:
> I too prefer Morphic over Spec. I find Spec too much verbose. And in fact,
> Morphic as presented in the Self language it's a much modern approach to
> building UIs than Spec which is pure code. So as complicated as it might
> have become, I'm still attached to Morphic.
> Smalltalker apprentice.
> Buenos Aires, Argentina.
> View this message in context: http://forum.world.st/Question-about-Morphic-in-Pharo-4-tp4796331p4796449.html
> Sent from the Pharo Smalltalk Users mailing list archive at Nabble.com.
More information about the Pharo-users