August 2012 - Pharo-dev - lists.pharo.org

Re: [Pharo-project] New Text Completion suggestions

by dimitris chloupis

I will have to agree. I come from blender the 3d application and up to version 2.49 blender did not allow modfiable shortcuts and if you have used a 3d app you know how crucial shortcuts are . Well I knew a lot of people that did not use blender only because of this. In 2.5 blender developer was clear that realised their mistakes and one of the correction was the addition of modifiable shortcuts. Guess what where the sets of shortcuts first released. 3dstudio max and maya, obviously because most people have been coming from those applications. Frankly I dont trust an application or its developers to tell me what is a good shortcut for me. Oh by the way I come from emacs, and emacs shortcuts suck big time :D ... still I love emacs but I would not use it if it did not allow me to modify those shortcuts.And as you might guessed I did not use Blender before 2.5 for the same reason.Â Having a standard set of shortcuts is the easy way for documentation and tutorials, but generally speeking the first thing a user tends to customise in application is the shortcuts. Because people have diffirent needs and use diffirent parts of application.Â ________________________________ From: Camillo Bruni <camillobruni(a)gmail.com> To: Pharo-project(a)lists.gforge.inria.fr Sent: Friday, 24 August 2012, 1:37 Subject: Re: [Pharo-project] New Text Completion suggestions On 2012-08-23, at 19:50, Stephan Eggermont <stephan(a)stack.nl> wrote: > Camillo wrote: >> So you're saying modifiable keyboard shortcuts are a bad design? > > Yes. > > That is to say, using them outside of developing a good set of > key bindings (possibly for each language/keyboard). We need them > to get to this consistent set. Options could be on the level of > vi/wordstar/emacs style. I see 3 versions here, I add vim, BOOM flamewar :D. so no options, is no option, forget it... whenever there will be an emacs keybinding set, I will bribe people until I have a corresponding vim set :D

Aug. 24, 2012

Re: [Pharo-project] New Text Completion suggestions

by Igor Stasenko

On 24 August 2012 02:25, David T. Lewis <lewis(a)mail.msen.com> wrote: > On Fri, Aug 24, 2012 at 01:40:54AM +0200, Igor Stasenko wrote: >> On 24 August 2012 01:19, Eliot Miranda <eliot.miranda(a)gmail.com> wrote: >> > >> > >> > On Thu, Aug 23, 2012 at 3:57 PM, Igor Stasenko <siguctua(a)gmail.com> wrote: >> >> >> >> (a bit orthogonal) >> >> i don't understand why we cannot have own, consistent set which is good >> >> for us? >> >> vim, emacs.. >> > >> > >> > better use sets which are already extremely familiar than invent yet another >> > set. to those of us who use these editors (and we are legion) these sets >> > have long become almost subconscious to use. >> > >> >> i know that.. i also came to squeak from outside.. >> but as we say in Ukraine: don't enter others sanctuary with own >> code(set of rules). >> >> >> why this is so important ? Those editors were not written for editing >> >> smalltalk code in mind.. >> >> they are best suited for big, hundreds lines of code, files.. >> > >> > >> > they're the two most popular editors of their type. lots of people use them >> > for other languages without IDE support. They provide convenient power >> > features such as pattern replacement. Not often I find myself filing out >> > Smalltalk code and editing it with vim (sadly I've never learned emacs). >> > >> me too.. i never learned emacs. So, maybe i am completely ignorant and can't see >> why it is so important to have it there.. But then, i don't >> understand, why most of editors i know >> never had emacs/vim key bindings as option? Are they completely stupid? Huh? > > Typing is like playing a musical instrument. A good typist does not look > at the keyboard, and is not consciously aware of the individual keys and > motions of his or her fingers. Once you learn to play a musical instrument, > the mind goes beyond the mechanical motions, and your thoughts and creativity > occur without conscious awareness of fingering positions. A pianist is not > "better than" a banjo player, and a saxophone is not better than a guitar. > I know very well what you talking about. But to me it feels like people asking to add piano keys to saxophone here, because they're good at playing piano. What i would really like is ask the guys who made new shortcuts for nautilus is to spend a bit of extra effort and create a printable shortcuts quick-sheet, so i can print it, stick before my eyes, and don't waste my time digging into menus trying to find what i need each time.. This would speed up learning process a lot. > This is why key bindings are important. Our brains and our fingers just work > that way. If you can play a saxophone and edit in emacs, then you may not be > comfortable communicating with a guitar fretboard or a vi editor. > > Personally, I am a mediocre guitarist and vi user, and sadly I never learned > emacs or piano ;) > >> >> So, you know, if we follow that logic.. hey we don't have a unix command line.. >> so maybe we should add an option: either workspace or command line? >> and then introduce nice terminal emulation with prompt, users and .bashrc .. >> ahh.. what the hell.. lets replicate whole unix environment.. imagine >> how many happy users will join us then! > > Ack! Pfft! What a horrible idea: > http://wiki.squeak.org/squeak/6023 > > ;) > > Dave > > -- Best regards, Igor Stasenko.

Aug. 24, 2012

Re: [Pharo-project] New Text Completion suggestions

by David T. Lewis

On Fri, Aug 24, 2012 at 01:40:54AM +0200, Igor Stasenko wrote: > On 24 August 2012 01:19, Eliot Miranda <eliot.miranda(a)gmail.com> wrote: > > > > > > On Thu, Aug 23, 2012 at 3:57 PM, Igor Stasenko <siguctua(a)gmail.com> wrote: > >> > >> (a bit orthogonal) > >> i don't understand why we cannot have own, consistent set which is good > >> for us? > >> vim, emacs.. > > > > > > better use sets which are already extremely familiar than invent yet another > > set. to those of us who use these editors (and we are legion) these sets > > have long become almost subconscious to use. > > > > i know that.. i also came to squeak from outside.. > but as we say in Ukraine: don't enter others sanctuary with own > code(set of rules). > > >> why this is so important ? Those editors were not written for editing > >> smalltalk code in mind.. > >> they are best suited for big, hundreds lines of code, files.. > > > > > > they're the two most popular editors of their type. lots of people use them > > for other languages without IDE support. They provide convenient power > > features such as pattern replacement. Not often I find myself filing out > > Smalltalk code and editing it with vim (sadly I've never learned emacs). > > > me too.. i never learned emacs. So, maybe i am completely ignorant and can't see > why it is so important to have it there.. But then, i don't > understand, why most of editors i know > never had emacs/vim key bindings as option? Are they completely stupid? Huh? Typing is like playing a musical instrument. A good typist does not look at the keyboard, and is not consciously aware of the individual keys and motions of his or her fingers. Once you learn to play a musical instrument, the mind goes beyond the mechanical motions, and your thoughts and creativity occur without conscious awareness of fingering positions. A pianist is not "better than" a banjo player, and a saxophone is not better than a guitar. This is why key bindings are important. Our brains and our fingers just work that way. If you can play a saxophone and edit in emacs, then you may not be comfortable communicating with a guitar fretboard or a vi editor. Personally, I am a mediocre guitarist and vi user, and sadly I never learned emacs or piano ;) > > So, you know, if we follow that logic.. hey we don't have a unix command line.. > so maybe we should add an option: either workspace or command line? > and then introduce nice terminal emulation with prompt, users and .bashrc .. > ahh.. what the hell.. lets replicate whole unix environment.. imagine > how many happy users will join us then! Ack! Pfft! What a horrible idea: http://wiki.squeak.org/squeak/6023 ;) Dave

Aug. 24, 2012

Re: [Pharo-project] New Text Completion suggestions

by Fernando Olivero

Igor, as usual your true object-oriented thinking helps us see a better path... We need a customized UI interaction for Smalltalk, instead of asking for TEXT editors devised for a different setup. What's missing is a Smalltalk method shape(morph, etc...), highly customized for editing/navigating statements written in the Smalltalk syntax. ( unless you want to code the methods using the workspace.....) We can still preserve cmd-c for copy, and cmd-v for paste...IMO it's not about inventing a new set of keyboard shortcuts, but more about manipulating objects at the right level of abstraction. Saludos, Fernando On Fri, Aug 24, 2012 at 1:40 AM, Igor Stasenko <siguctua(a)gmail.com> wrote: > On 24 August 2012 01:19, Eliot Miranda <eliot.miranda(a)gmail.com> wrote: >> >> >> On Thu, Aug 23, 2012 at 3:57 PM, Igor Stasenko <siguctua(a)gmail.com> wrote: >>> >>> (a bit orthogonal) >>> i don't understand why we cannot have own, consistent set which is good >>> for us? >>> vim, emacs.. >> >> >> better use sets which are already extremely familiar than invent yet another >> set. to those of us who use these editors (and we are legion) these sets >> have long become almost subconscious to use. >> > > i know that.. i also came to squeak from outside.. > but as we say in Ukraine: don't enter others sanctuary with own > code(set of rules). > >>> why this is so important ? Those editors were not written for editing >>> smalltalk code in mind.. >>> they are best suited for big, hundreds lines of code, files.. >> >> >> they're the two most popular editors of their type. lots of people use them >> for other languages without IDE support. They provide convenient power >> features such as pattern replacement. Not often I find myself filing out >> Smalltalk code and editing it with vim (sadly I've never learned emacs). >> > me too.. i never learned emacs. So, maybe i am completely ignorant and can't see > why it is so important to have it there.. But then, i don't > understand, why most of editors i know > never had emacs/vim key bindings as option? Are they completely stupid? Huh? > > So, you know, if we follow that logic.. hey we don't have a unix command line.. > so maybe we should add an option: either workspace or command line? > and then introduce nice terminal emulation with prompt, users and .bashrc .. > ahh.. what the hell.. lets replicate whole unix environment.. imagine > how many happy users will join us then! > > -- > Best regards, > Igor Stasenko. >

Aug. 23, 2012

Re: [Pharo-project] New Text Completion suggestions

by Igor Stasenko

On 24 August 2012 01:19, Eliot Miranda <eliot.miranda(a)gmail.com> wrote: > > > On Thu, Aug 23, 2012 at 3:57 PM, Igor Stasenko <siguctua(a)gmail.com> wrote: >> >> (a bit orthogonal) >> i don't understand why we cannot have own, consistent set which is good >> for us? >> vim, emacs.. > > > better use sets which are already extremely familiar than invent yet another > set. to those of us who use these editors (and we are legion) these sets > have long become almost subconscious to use. > i know that.. i also came to squeak from outside.. but as we say in Ukraine: don't enter others sanctuary with own code(set of rules). >> why this is so important ? Those editors were not written for editing >> smalltalk code in mind.. >> they are best suited for big, hundreds lines of code, files.. > > > they're the two most popular editors of their type. lots of people use them > for other languages without IDE support. They provide convenient power > features such as pattern replacement. Not often I find myself filing out > Smalltalk code and editing it with vim (sadly I've never learned emacs). > me too.. i never learned emacs. So, maybe i am completely ignorant and can't see why it is so important to have it there.. But then, i don't understand, why most of editors i know never had emacs/vim key bindings as option? Are they completely stupid? Huh? So, you know, if we follow that logic.. hey we don't have a unix command line.. so maybe we should add an option: either workspace or command line? and then introduce nice terminal emulation with prompt, users and .bashrc .. ahh.. what the hell.. lets replicate whole unix environment.. imagine how many happy users will join us then! -- Best regards, Igor Stasenko.

Aug. 23, 2012

Re: [Pharo-project] New Text Completion suggestions

by Eliot Miranda

On Thu, Aug 23, 2012 at 3:57 PM, Igor Stasenko <siguctua(a)gmail.com> wrote: > (a bit orthogonal) > i don't understand why we cannot have own, consistent set which is good > for us? > vim, emacs.. better use sets which are already extremely familiar than invent yet another set. to those of us who use these editors (and we are legion) these sets have long become almost subconscious to use. why this is so important ? Those editors were not written for editing > smalltalk code in mind.. > they are best suited for big, hundreds lines of code, files.. > they're the two most popular editors of their type. lots of people use them for other languages without IDE support. They provide convenient power features such as pattern replacement. Not often I find myself filing out Smalltalk code and editing it with vim (sadly I've never learned emacs). > while something like that in our case is an exception rather than norm. > So, why some people striving for having same keys as there? Just > because they get used to them? > > Seriously vim? A modal editor which is invented for editing files on > obscure terminals, where you don't even have a cursor keys on > keyboard? I pass.. > > Just give me a decent editor with good cursor navigation, selection > and undo/redo/find/replace, that's all i need. > > > > -- > Best regards, > Igor Stasenko. > > -- best, Eliot

Aug. 23, 2012

Re: [Pharo-project] New Text Completion suggestions

by Igor Stasenko

(a bit orthogonal) i don't understand why we cannot have own, consistent set which is good for us? vim, emacs.. why this is so important ? Those editors were not written for editing smalltalk code in mind.. they are best suited for big, hundreds lines of code, files.. while something like that in our case is an exception rather than norm. So, why some people striving for having same keys as there? Just because they get used to them? Seriously vim? A modal editor which is invented for editing files on obscure terminals, where you don't even have a cursor keys on keyboard? I pass.. Just give me a decent editor with good cursor navigation, selection and undo/redo/find/replace, that's all i need. -- Best regards, Igor Stasenko.

Aug. 23, 2012

Re: [Pharo-project] New Text Completion suggestions

by Camillo Bruni

On 2012-08-23, at 19:50, Stephan Eggermont <stephan(a)stack.nl> wrote: > Camillo wrote: >> So you're saying modifiable keyboard shortcuts are a bad design? > > Yes. > > That is to say, using them outside of developing a good set of > key bindings (possibly for each language/keyboard). We need them > to get to this consistent set. Options could be on the level of > vi/wordstar/emacs style. I see 3 versions here, I add vim, BOOM flamewar :D. so no options, is no option, forget it... whenever there will be an emacs keybinding set, I will bribe people until I have a corresponding vim set :D

Aug. 23, 2012

[Pharo-project] Friday in Ghent

by DeNigris Sean

I'm arriving on Friday morning (about 9am)... anyone else around? Sean

Aug. 23, 2012

Re: [Pharo-project] [In Progress] WebSocket support being added to Zinc HTTP Components

by Esteban A. Maringolo

Excellent news Sven! -- View this message in context: http://forum.world.st/In-Progress-WebSocket-support-being-added-to-Zinc-HTT… Sent from the Pharo Smalltalk mailing list archive at Nabble.com.

Aug. 23, 2012