April 2015 - Pharo-dev - lists.pharo.org

Re: [Pharo-dev] Improving the documentation model

by Dmitri Zagidulin

And just to be clear, I am not against GUIs, specifically. I'm against GUIs for distributed version control for collaborating on documentation. And only because I haven't seen it done in a usable fashion (again, see Revision Control in Word or Google Docs). I'm always willing to be proven wrong on that count, if some amazing tech comes along. On Tue, Apr 21, 2015 at 3:48 PM, kilon alios <kilon.alios(a)gmail.com> wrote: > Its funny you mention natural selection an extremely stupid and slow > process. Fortunately for us software evolves with artificial selection > which way faster and way more intelligent. But still it comes with a great > deal of flaws when you take a look at what exactly is popular in the coding > world nowdays . Or even outside the coding world. But yes we can sit here > and debate this for million of years. > > I am not a GUI zealot though, I have my own opinion that I never try to > enforce on others. I am perfectly ok with people that prefer a text based > approach. The only thing I am saying that GUIs have one undisputed > advantage, they are not text based only ;) > > For me it comes down to making sensible convenient and practical useful > UIs. How you do it , graphical or text based is secondary concern. > > I am also aware of the fact that GUIs tend to be more difficult to create, > which provides a very good explanation why command lines are still quite > popular. > > On Tue, Apr 21, 2015 at 9:48 PM, Nicolas Anquetil < > nicolas.anquetil(a)inria.fr> wrote: > >> >> This remind me of a discussion a very long time ago on a newsgroup >> >> - a young zealot of GUI (windows, buttons, mouses) was asking himself and >> the community how people could deny that this was the best interface on >> earth or how anybody could prefer text based interface >> >> - a seasonned sys. admin then started to explain all the clicks he had to >> perform to create one new user account. Result: for one new user some >> minutes of work >> He then added that he had to create HUMDREDS of user every year and was >> so very happy that he did not had to do it all by pointing and clicking but >> had some scripts to do it. >> >> So the answer to all this is that there are very good and valid reasons >> to prefer text to all the shiny interfaces of he world. >> And you don't even have to look very far to find some. >> >> As for programming with in a graphical way, the ability has been around >> for decades. >> I believe we can safely assume that if people are still using textual >> interface after such a very long period (in computer science time frame), >> it is most certainly because natural selection has favoured the choice that >> had most advantages ... >> >> nicolas >> >> PS: which does not mean that GUI are completely useless >> >> >> On 21/04/2015 20:03, kilon alios wrote: >> >> Funnily enough I am in the exact opposite opinion, of Graphical >> approach being vastly superior to text based approach including programming >> languages. 25 years using computers and coding with them and still cannot >> fathom why programming languages are still a think and why developers and >> "power" users rely so much on text based approach. But whether I like it or >> not the coding world is dominated by text based solutions. >> >> Its a pointless debate though when it comes to pharo will depend on the >> people doing the work. Personally I don't have the time of going very deep >> into this and doing all the hard work it requires. My focus is elsewhere. >> But I welcome any contribution. >> >> As a lawyer myself and a coder, I cannot even begin to compare Latex to >> the convenience of Libreoffice I use at work. Its not even a debate . >> Latex is something I never heard of until Pillar introduced me to it. >> Can't imagine who in the right mind would use this to document things, but >> I guess they have their reasons. >> >> I started with command line and CP/M back in 1988 but even back then >> when GUIs were not mainstream (at least in my country) I was dreaming of >> graphical intefaces that would lift me from the restrictions of text based >> approach and the dreaded command line. I wish I had found out about >> Smalltalk back then and its elegant solution to this problem. >> >> I love Pillar because its simple and I like the syntax, but yeah in the >> end I would choose a Graphical Documentation Tool no questions asked. >> >> On Tue, Apr 21, 2015 at 7:39 PM, Dmitri Zagidulin <dmitri(a)zagidulin.net> >> wrote: >> >>> On Tue, Apr 21, 2015 at 12:15 PM, Sean P. DeNigris < >>> sean(a)clipperadams.com> wrote: >>>> >>>> I dream that all documents in my Dynabook are WYSIWYG. However, the >>>> computing world seems to have regressed into writing documents in >>>> various >>>> forms of assembly code. >>> >>> >>> Completely disagree, that it's a regression in any way :) Text-based >>> document writing has enabled so many more features than WYSIWYG approaches >>> have ever dreamed of. I would be happy to debate the merits of the two >>> approaches, feature-for-feature. >>> >>> You're basically pining for the equivalent of VisualBasic drag & drop >>> programming, versus the flexibility of writing code in an editor. The >>> latter wins, no contest. (Now, that is not to say that text-based code >>> editing can't be /improved/ with better IDE tools, that's what we're all >>> about after all.) >>> >>> >> >> >> >

April 21, 2015

Re: [Pharo-dev] Improving the documentation model

by kilon alios

Its funny you mention natural selection an extremely stupid and slow process. Fortunately for us software evolves with artificial selection which way faster and way more intelligent. But still it comes with a great deal of flaws when you take a look at what exactly is popular in the coding world nowdays . Or even outside the coding world. But yes we can sit here and debate this for million of years. I am not a GUI zealot though, I have my own opinion that I never try to enforce on others. I am perfectly ok with people that prefer a text based approach. The only thing I am saying that GUIs have one undisputed advantage, they are not text based only ;) For me it comes down to making sensible convenient and practical useful UIs. How you do it , graphical or text based is secondary concern. I am also aware of the fact that GUIs tend to be more difficult to create, which provides a very good explanation why command lines are still quite popular. On Tue, Apr 21, 2015 at 9:48 PM, Nicolas Anquetil <nicolas.anquetil(a)inria.fr > wrote: > > This remind me of a discussion a very long time ago on a newsgroup > > - a young zealot of GUI (windows, buttons, mouses) was asking himself and > the community how people could deny that this was the best interface on > earth or how anybody could prefer text based interface > > - a seasonned sys. admin then started to explain all the clicks he had to > perform to create one new user account. Result: for one new user some > minutes of work > He then added that he had to create HUMDREDS of user every year and was so > very happy that he did not had to do it all by pointing and clicking but > had some scripts to do it. > > So the answer to all this is that there are very good and valid reasons to > prefer text to all the shiny interfaces of he world. > And you don't even have to look very far to find some. > > As for programming with in a graphical way, the ability has been around > for decades. > I believe we can safely assume that if people are still using textual > interface after such a very long period (in computer science time frame), > it is most certainly because natural selection has favoured the choice that > had most advantages ... > > nicolas > > PS: which does not mean that GUI are completely useless > > > On 21/04/2015 20:03, kilon alios wrote: > > Funnily enough I am in the exact opposite opinion, of Graphical > approach being vastly superior to text based approach including programming > languages. 25 years using computers and coding with them and still cannot > fathom why programming languages are still a think and why developers and > "power" users rely so much on text based approach. But whether I like it or > not the coding world is dominated by text based solutions. > > Its a pointless debate though when it comes to pharo will depend on the > people doing the work. Personally I don't have the time of going very deep > into this and doing all the hard work it requires. My focus is elsewhere. > But I welcome any contribution. > > As a lawyer myself and a coder, I cannot even begin to compare Latex to > the convenience of Libreoffice I use at work. Its not even a debate . > Latex is something I never heard of until Pillar introduced me to it. > Can't imagine who in the right mind would use this to document things, but > I guess they have their reasons. > > I started with command line and CP/M back in 1988 but even back then when > GUIs were not mainstream (at least in my country) I was dreaming of > graphical intefaces that would lift me from the restrictions of text based > approach and the dreaded command line. I wish I had found out about > Smalltalk back then and its elegant solution to this problem. > > I love Pillar because its simple and I like the syntax, but yeah in the > end I would choose a Graphical Documentation Tool no questions asked. > > On Tue, Apr 21, 2015 at 7:39 PM, Dmitri Zagidulin <dmitri(a)zagidulin.net> > wrote: > >> On Tue, Apr 21, 2015 at 12:15 PM, Sean P. DeNigris < >> sean(a)clipperadams.com> wrote: >>> >>> I dream that all documents in my Dynabook are WYSIWYG. However, the >>> computing world seems to have regressed into writing documents in various >>> forms of assembly code. >> >> >> Completely disagree, that it's a regression in any way :) Text-based >> document writing has enabled so many more features than WYSIWYG approaches >> have ever dreamed of. I would be happy to debate the merits of the two >> approaches, feature-for-feature. >> >> You're basically pining for the equivalent of VisualBasic drag & drop >> programming, versus the flexibility of writing code in an editor. The >> latter wins, no contest. (Now, that is not to say that text-based code >> editing can't be /improved/ with better IDE tools, that's what we're all >> about after all.) >> >> > > >

April 21, 2015

Re: [Pharo-dev] Improving the documentation model

by nacho

I think we have to distinguish two things. One thing is GUI only with mouse. Another one is GUI with lots of keyboard shortcuts and bindings. For instance. I use a lot of Excel which clearly is a GUI app but I seldom use the mouse it is much productive for me to use shortcuts. An analogy can be made between Python an Pharo. Python is great, but one of the things that really annoys me is that all the methods, clases are there in a way which is difficult to grasp them. On the other hand, the System Browser is a wonderful thing for an OO language. GUI Zealot yes, mouse Zealot definitely not. Cheers Nacho *Lic. Ignacio Sniechowski, MBA* *Prosavic SRL* *Tel: (011) 4542-6714* On Tue, Apr 21, 2015 at 4:35 PM, kilon.alios [via Smalltalk] < ml-node+s1294792n4820989h52(a)n4.nabble.com> wrote: > Its funny you mention natural selection an extremely stupid and slow > process. Fortunately for us software evolves with artificial selection > which way faster and way more intelligent. But still it comes with a great > deal of flaws when you take a look at what exactly is popular in the coding > world nowdays . Or even outside the coding world. But yes we can sit here > and debate this for million of years. > > I am not a GUI zealot though, I have my own opinion that I never try to > enforce on others. I am perfectly ok with people that prefer a text based > approach. The only thing I am saying that GUIs have one undisputed > advantage, they are not text based only ;) > > For me it comes down to making sensible convenient and practical useful > UIs. How you do it , graphical or text based is secondary concern. > > I am also aware of the fact that GUIs tend to be more difficult to create, > which provides a very good explanation why command lines are still quite > popular. > > On Tue, Apr 21, 2015 at 9:48 PM, Nicolas Anquetil <[hidden email] > <http:///user/SendEmail.jtp?type=node&node=4820989&i=0>> wrote: > >> >> This remind me of a discussion a very long time ago on a newsgroup >> >> - a young zealot of GUI (windows, buttons, mouses) was asking himself and >> the community how people could deny that this was the best interface on >> earth or how anybody could prefer text based interface >> >> - a seasonned sys. admin then started to explain all the clicks he had to >> perform to create one new user account. Result: for one new user some >> minutes of work >> He then added that he had to create HUMDREDS of user every year and was >> so very happy that he did not had to do it all by pointing and clicking but >> had some scripts to do it. >> >> So the answer to all this is that there are very good and valid reasons >> to prefer text to all the shiny interfaces of he world. >> And you don't even have to look very far to find some. >> >> As for programming with in a graphical way, the ability has been around >> for decades. >> I believe we can safely assume that if people are still using textual >> interface after such a very long period (in computer science time frame), >> it is most certainly because natural selection has favoured the choice that >> had most advantages ... >> >> nicolas >> >> PS: which does not mean that GUI are completely useless >> >> >> On 21/04/2015 20:03, kilon alios wrote: >> >> Funnily enough I am in the exact opposite opinion, of Graphical >> approach being vastly superior to text based approach including programming >> languages. 25 years using computers and coding with them and still cannot >> fathom why programming languages are still a think and why developers and >> "power" users rely so much on text based approach. But whether I like it or >> not the coding world is dominated by text based solutions. >> >> Its a pointless debate though when it comes to pharo will depend on the >> people doing the work. Personally I don't have the time of going very deep >> into this and doing all the hard work it requires. My focus is elsewhere. >> But I welcome any contribution. >> >> As a lawyer myself and a coder, I cannot even begin to compare Latex to >> the convenience of Libreoffice I use at work. Its not even a debate . >> Latex is something I never heard of until Pillar introduced me to it. >> Can't imagine who in the right mind would use this to document things, but >> I guess they have their reasons. >> >> I started with command line and CP/M back in 1988 but even back then >> when GUIs were not mainstream (at least in my country) I was dreaming of >> graphical intefaces that would lift me from the restrictions of text based >> approach and the dreaded command line. I wish I had found out about >> Smalltalk back then and its elegant solution to this problem. >> >> I love Pillar because its simple and I like the syntax, but yeah in the >> end I would choose a Graphical Documentation Tool no questions asked. >> >> On Tue, Apr 21, 2015 at 7:39 PM, Dmitri Zagidulin <[hidden email] >> <http:///user/SendEmail.jtp?type=node&node=4820989&i=1>> wrote: >> >>> On Tue, Apr 21, 2015 at 12:15 PM, Sean P. DeNigris <[hidden email] >>> <http:///user/SendEmail.jtp?type=node&node=4820989&i=2>> wrote: >>>> >>>> I dream that all documents in my Dynabook are WYSIWYG. However, the >>>> computing world seems to have regressed into writing documents in >>>> various >>>> forms of assembly code. >>> >>> >>> Completely disagree, that it's a regression in any way :) Text-based >>> document writing has enabled so many more features than WYSIWYG approaches >>> have ever dreamed of. I would be happy to debate the merits of the two >>> approaches, feature-for-feature. >>> >>> You're basically pining for the equivalent of VisualBasic drag & drop >>> programming, versus the flexibility of writing code in an editor. The >>> latter wins, no contest. (Now, that is not to say that text-based code >>> editing can't be /improved/ with better IDE tools, that's what we're all >>> about after all.) >>> >>> >> >> >> > > > ------------------------------ > If you reply to this email, your message will be added to the discussion > below: > > http://forum.world.st/Improving-the-documentation-model-tp4820814p4820989.h… > To start a new topic under Pharo Smalltalk Developers, email > ml-node+s1294792n1294837h40(a)n4.nabble.com > To unsubscribe from Pharo Smalltalk Developers, click here > <http://forum.world.st/template/NamlServlet.jtp?macro=unsubscribe_by_code&no…> > . > NAML > <http://forum.world.st/template/NamlServlet.jtp?macro=macro_viewer&id=instan…> > ----- Nacho Smalltalker apprentice. Buenos Aires, Argentina. -- View this message in context: http://forum.world.st/Improving-the-documentation-model-tp4820814p4820991.h… Sent from the Pharo Smalltalk Developers mailing list archive at Nabble.com.

April 21, 2015

Re: [Pharo-dev] Interrupt a locked pharo image from outside

by Thierry Goubier

Le 21/04/2015 18:04, Sean P. DeNigris a Ã©crit : > Thierry Goubier wrote >> OSProcess 4.5.13 has a tendancy to lock the image on some linux systems > > Total shot in the dark, but IIRC setting PipeableOSProcess output to non > blocking fixes many lockup scenarios I believe downgrading OSProcess to 4.5.11 is making PipeableOSProcess use blocking I/O :) and it solves the lockup. Thierry

April 21, 2015

Re: [Pharo-dev] Improving the documentation model

by phil＠highoctane.be

On Tue, Apr 21, 2015 at 8:48 PM, Nicolas Anquetil <nicolas.anquetil(a)inria.fr > wrote: > > This remind me of a discussion a very long time ago on a newsgroup > > - a young zealot of GUI (windows, buttons, mouses) was asking himself and > the community how people could deny that this was the best interface on > earth or how anybody could prefer text based interface > > - a seasonned sys. admin then started to explain all the clicks he had to > perform to create one new user account. Result: for one new user some > minutes of work > He then added that he had to create HUMDREDS of user every year and was so > very happy that he did not had to do it all by pointing and clicking but > had some scripts to do it. > > So the answer to all this is that there are very good and valid reasons to > prefer text to all the shiny interfaces of he world. > And you don't even have to look very far to find some. > > As for programming with in a graphical way, the ability has been around > for decades. > I believe we can safely assume that if people are still using textual > interface after such a very long period (in computer science time frame), > it is most certainly because natural selection has favoured the choice that > had most advantages ... > Coral, where are you? > > nicolas > > PS: which does not mean that GUI are completely useless > > On 21/04/2015 20:03, kilon alios wrote: > > Funnily enough I am in the exact opposite opinion, of Graphical > approach being vastly superior to text based approach including programming > languages. 25 years using computers and coding with them and still cannot > fathom why programming languages are still a think and why developers and > "power" users rely so much on text based approach. But whether I like it or > not the coding world is dominated by text based solutions. > > Its a pointless debate though when it comes to pharo will depend on the > people doing the work. Personally I don't have the time of going very deep > into this and doing all the hard work it requires. My focus is elsewhere. > But I welcome any contribution. > > As a lawyer myself and a coder, I cannot even begin to compare Latex to > the convenience of Libreoffice I use at work. Its not even a debate . > Latex is something I never heard of until Pillar introduced me to it. > Can't imagine who in the right mind would use this to document things, but > I guess they have their reasons. > > I started with command line and CP/M back in 1988 but even back then when > GUIs were not mainstream (at least in my country) I was dreaming of > graphical intefaces that would lift me from the restrictions of text based > approach and the dreaded command line. I wish I had found out about > Smalltalk back then and its elegant solution to this problem. > > I love Pillar because its simple and I like the syntax, but yeah in the > end I would choose a Graphical Documentation Tool no questions asked. > > On Tue, Apr 21, 2015 at 7:39 PM, Dmitri Zagidulin <dmitri(a)zagidulin.net> > wrote: > >> On Tue, Apr 21, 2015 at 12:15 PM, Sean P. DeNigris < >> sean(a)clipperadams.com> wrote: >>> >>> I dream that all documents in my Dynabook are WYSIWYG. However, the >>> computing world seems to have regressed into writing documents in various >>> forms of assembly code. >> >> >> Completely disagree, that it's a regression in any way :) Text-based >> document writing has enabled so many more features than WYSIWYG approaches >> have ever dreamed of. I would be happy to debate the merits of the two >> approaches, feature-for-feature. >> >> You're basically pining for the equivalent of VisualBasic drag & drop >> programming, versus the flexibility of writing code in an editor. The >> latter wins, no contest. (Now, that is not to say that text-based code >> editing can't be /improved/ with better IDE tools, that's what we're all >> about after all.) >> >> > > >

April 21, 2015

Re: [Pharo-dev] [Vm-dev] Fixes to the SqueakSSL Plugin

by stepharo

Thanks you guys! Le 21/4/15 17:59, Tobias Pape a Ã©crit : > > Dear Smalltalkers > > Starting with Levente Uzonyi's patches to the Linux version > of the SqueakSSL-Plugin, we (Marcel Taeumel and me) have > ported this to the OS X and Windows version as well. > > Find three binaries[1] that can be used instead of > the ones found on versions found on SqueakSSL's google code > page. > > SqueakSSL: > - x86 32bit Linux ELF dynamic library > - Contains Levente's SNI feature > - needs SqueakSSL-ul.29 or equivalent for SNI support > - can work without. > - NOT linked against OpenSSL, but > _statically_ linked against LibreSSL 2.1.6 [2]. > - It should work on older and newer Debian/Ubuntu as well as on > CentOS/RedHat/SuSE systems. > > SqueakSSL.dll > - x86 32bit Windows dll (built with Visual Studio 2013) > - Uses Schannel API > - SNI Support > - needs SqueakSSL-ul.29 or equivalent for SNI support > - can work without. > - setting an Int property via sqSetIntPropertySSL(...) > - Unicode problems when extracting the correct peerName in sqExtractPeerName > > SqueakSSL.bundle > - x86 32bit OS X Mach-O dylib (Linked against OS X 10.5 SDK) > - Uses Security-Framework > - SNI Support > - needs SqueakSSL-ul.29 or equivalent for SNI support > - can work without. > --------------------------------------------------------------------------------- > > The changes necessary for Windows and OS X are not yet available in the > squeakvm svn, the linux ones are. > I have not yet found a good way to include the static linking in either > the way the Autoconf works for Cog or CMake works for the interpreter, > but I'll follow-up to this. > > -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- > > Best regards > -Tobias > > > > > [1]: http://forum.world.st/file/n4820846/squeakssl.zip > [2]: http://www.libressl.org/ > >

April 21, 2015

Re: [Pharo-dev] Improving the documentation model

by Nicolas Anquetil

This remind me of a discussion a very long time ago on a newsgroup - a young zealot of GUI (windows, buttons, mouses) was asking himself and the community how people could deny that this was the best interface on earth or how anybody could prefer text based interface - a seasonned sys. admin then started to explain all the clicks he had to perform to create one new user account. Result: for one new user some minutes of work He then added that he had to create HUMDREDS of user every year and was so very happy that he did not had to do it all by pointing and clicking but had some scripts to do it. So the answer to all this is that there are very good and valid reasons to prefer text to all the shiny interfaces of he world. And you don't even have to look very far to find some. As for programming with in a graphical way, the ability has been around for decades. I believe we can safely assume that if people are still using textual interface after such a very long period (in computer science time frame), it is most certainly because natural selection has favoured the choice that had most advantages ... nicolas PS: which does not mean that GUI are completely useless On 21/04/2015 20:03, kilon alios wrote: > Funnily enough I am in the exact opposite opinion, of Graphical > approach being vastly superior to text based approach including > programming languages. 25 years using computers and coding with them > and still cannot fathom why programming languages are still a think > and why developers and "power" users rely so much on text based > approach. But whether I like it or not the coding world is dominated > by text based solutions. > > Its a pointless debate though when it comes to pharo will depend on > the people doing the work. Personally I don't have the time of going > very deep into this and doing all the hard work it requires. My focus > is elsewhere. But I welcome any contribution. > > As a lawyer myself and a coder, I cannot even begin to compare Latex > to the convenience of Libreoffice I use at work. Its not even a debate > . Latex is something I never heard of until Pillar introduced me to > it. Can't imagine who in the right mind would use this to document > things, but I guess they have their reasons. > > I started with command line and CP/M back in 1988 but even back then > when GUIs were not mainstream (at least in my country) I was dreaming > of graphical intefaces that would lift me from the restrictions of > text based approach and the dreaded command line. I wish I had found > out about Smalltalk back then and its elegant solution to this problem. > > I love Pillar because its simple and I like the syntax, but yeah in > the end I would choose a Graphical Documentation Tool no questions asked. > > On Tue, Apr 21, 2015 at 7:39 PM, Dmitri Zagidulin > <dmitri(a)zagidulin.net <mailto:dmitri@zagidulin.net>> wrote: > > On Tue, Apr 21, 2015 at 12:15 PM, Sean P. DeNigris > <sean(a)clipperadams.com <mailto:sean@clipperadams.com>> wrote: > > I dream that all documents in my Dynabook are WYSIWYG. > However, the > computing world seems to have regressed into writing documents > in various > forms of assembly code. > > > Completely disagree, that it's a regression in any way :) > Text-based document writing has enabled so many more features > than WYSIWYG approaches have ever dreamed of. I would be happy to > debate the merits of the two approaches, feature-for-feature. > > You're basically pining for the equivalent of VisualBasic drag & > drop programming, versus the flexibility of writing code in an > editor. The latter wins, no contest. (Now, that is not to say that > text-based code editing can't be /improved/ with better IDE tools, > that's what we're all about after all.) > >

April 21, 2015

Re: [Pharo-dev] Improving the documentation model

by phil＠highoctane.be

Pillar is fine as long as we aren't forced into the backend quirks to get a given output. I haven't see Docbook and Docbook-XML and XSL-FO mentioned. But these are working nicely too. Lots of Linux docs are written with Docbook. I've a client who outputs supercomplicated documents with XSL-FO. A Pillar output to Docbook would be great. One must invest time in any choice to be really productive. WYSIWYG included. FWIW LibreOffice equations are written much faster when one knows the text based language than with the point and click tools. The best thing is an ability to render fast. Same as Smalltalk: fast feedback in order to iterate without a break in the flow. Le 21 avr. 2015 20:03, "kilon alios" <kilon.alios(a)gmail.com> a Ã©crit : > Funnily enough I am in the exact opposite opinion, of Graphical approach > being vastly superior to text based approach including programming > languages. 25 years using computers and coding with them and still cannot > fathom why programming languages are still a think and why developers and > "power" users rely so much on text based approach. But whether I like it or > not the coding world is dominated by text based solutions. > > Its a pointless debate though when it comes to pharo will depend on the > people doing the work. Personally I don't have the time of going very deep > into this and doing all the hard work it requires. My focus is elsewhere. > But I welcome any contribution. > > As a lawyer myself and a coder, I cannot even begin to compare Latex to > the convenience of Libreoffice I use at work. Its not even a debate . > Latex is something I never heard of until Pillar introduced me to it. > Can't imagine who in the right mind would use this to document things, but > I guess they have their reasons. > > I started with command line and CP/M back in 1988 but even back then when > GUIs were not mainstream (at least in my country) I was dreaming of > graphical intefaces that would lift me from the restrictions of text based > approach and the dreaded command line. I wish I had found out about > Smalltalk back then and its elegant solution to this problem. > > I love Pillar because its simple and I like the syntax, but yeah in the > end I would choose a Graphical Documentation Tool no questions asked. > > On Tue, Apr 21, 2015 at 7:39 PM, Dmitri Zagidulin <dmitri(a)zagidulin.net> > wrote: > >> On Tue, Apr 21, 2015 at 12:15 PM, Sean P. DeNigris <sean(a)clipperadams.com >> > wrote: >>> >>> I dream that all documents in my Dynabook are WYSIWYG. However, the >>> computing world seems to have regressed into writing documents in various >>> forms of assembly code. >> >> >> Completely disagree, that it's a regression in any way :) Text-based >> document writing has enabled so many more features than WYSIWYG approaches >> have ever dreamed of. I would be happy to debate the merits of the two >> approaches, feature-for-feature. >> >> You're basically pining for the equivalent of VisualBasic drag & drop >> programming, versus the flexibility of writing code in an editor. The >> latter wins, no contest. (Now, that is not to say that text-based code >> editing can't be /improved/ with better IDE tools, that's what we're all >> about after all.) >> >> > >

April 21, 2015

Re: [Pharo-dev] Improving the documentation model

by kilon alios

Funnily enough I am in the exact opposite opinion, of Graphical approach being vastly superior to text based approach including programming languages. 25 years using computers and coding with them and still cannot fathom why programming languages are still a think and why developers and "power" users rely so much on text based approach. But whether I like it or not the coding world is dominated by text based solutions. Its a pointless debate though when it comes to pharo will depend on the people doing the work. Personally I don't have the time of going very deep into this and doing all the hard work it requires. My focus is elsewhere. But I welcome any contribution. As a lawyer myself and a coder, I cannot even begin to compare Latex to the convenience of Libreoffice I use at work. Its not even a debate . Latex is something I never heard of until Pillar introduced me to it. Can't imagine who in the right mind would use this to document things, but I guess they have their reasons. I started with command line and CP/M back in 1988 but even back then when GUIs were not mainstream (at least in my country) I was dreaming of graphical intefaces that would lift me from the restrictions of text based approach and the dreaded command line. I wish I had found out about Smalltalk back then and its elegant solution to this problem. I love Pillar because its simple and I like the syntax, but yeah in the end I would choose a Graphical Documentation Tool no questions asked. On Tue, Apr 21, 2015 at 7:39 PM, Dmitri Zagidulin <dmitri(a)zagidulin.net> wrote: > On Tue, Apr 21, 2015 at 12:15 PM, Sean P. DeNigris <sean(a)clipperadams.com> > wrote: >> >> I dream that all documents in my Dynabook are WYSIWYG. However, the >> computing world seems to have regressed into writing documents in various >> forms of assembly code. > > > Completely disagree, that it's a regression in any way :) Text-based > document writing has enabled so many more features than WYSIWYG approaches > have ever dreamed of. I would be happy to debate the merits of the two > approaches, feature-for-feature. > > You're basically pining for the equivalent of VisualBasic drag & drop > programming, versus the flexibility of writing code in an editor. The > latter wins, no contest. (Now, that is not to say that text-based code > editing can't be /improved/ with better IDE tools, that's what we're all > about after all.) > >

April 21, 2015

Re: [Pharo-dev] Improving the documentation model

by nacho

The other day I was thinking about this. I thought that it would be a great idea to have a pillar rendering engine inside Pharo. In that way the documentation written will be available in the image WYSIWYG with no need for recompilation. The update of books will be easy, just do a Software Update and the documentation is up to date. a Pillar rendering, WYSIWYG editor would be great. cheers Nacho *Lic. Ignacio Sniechowski, MBA* *Prosavic SRL* *Tel: (011) 4542-6714* On Tue, Apr 21, 2015 at 2:49 PM, kilon.alios [via Smalltalk] < ml-node+s1294792n4820973h56(a)n4.nabble.com> wrote: > Funnily enough I am in the exact opposite opinion, of Graphical approach > being vastly superior to text based approach including programming > languages. 25 years using computers and coding with them and still cannot > fathom why programming languages are still a think and why developers and > "power" users rely so much on text based approach. But whether I like it or > not the coding world is dominated by text based solutions. > > Its a pointless debate though when it comes to pharo will depend on the > people doing the work. Personally I don't have the time of going very deep > into this and doing all the hard work it requires. My focus is elsewhere. > But I welcome any contribution. > > As a lawyer myself and a coder, I cannot even begin to compare Latex to > the convenience of Libreoffice I use at work. Its not even a debate . > Latex is something I never heard of until Pillar introduced me to it. > Can't imagine who in the right mind would use this to document things, but > I guess they have their reasons. > > I started with command line and CP/M back in 1988 but even back then when > GUIs were not mainstream (at least in my country) I was dreaming of > graphical intefaces that would lift me from the restrictions of text based > approach and the dreaded command line. I wish I had found out about > Smalltalk back then and its elegant solution to this problem. > > I love Pillar because its simple and I like the syntax, but yeah in the > end I would choose a Graphical Documentation Tool no questions asked. > > On Tue, Apr 21, 2015 at 7:39 PM, Dmitri Zagidulin <[hidden email] > <http:///user/SendEmail.jtp?type=node&node=4820973&i=0>> wrote: > >> On Tue, Apr 21, 2015 at 12:15 PM, Sean P. DeNigris <[hidden email] >> <http:///user/SendEmail.jtp?type=node&node=4820973&i=1>> wrote: >>> >>> I dream that all documents in my Dynabook are WYSIWYG. However, the >>> computing world seems to have regressed into writing documents in various >>> forms of assembly code. >> >> >> Completely disagree, that it's a regression in any way :) Text-based >> document writing has enabled so many more features than WYSIWYG approaches >> have ever dreamed of. I would be happy to debate the merits of the two >> approaches, feature-for-feature. >> >> You're basically pining for the equivalent of VisualBasic drag & drop >> programming, versus the flexibility of writing code in an editor. The >> latter wins, no contest. (Now, that is not to say that text-based code >> editing can't be /improved/ with better IDE tools, that's what we're all >> about after all.) >> >> > > > > ------------------------------ > If you reply to this email, your message will be added to the discussion > below: > > http://forum.world.st/Improving-the-documentation-model-tp4820814p4820973.h… > To start a new topic under Pharo Smalltalk Developers, email > ml-node+s1294792n1294837h40(a)n4.nabble.com > To unsubscribe from Pharo Smalltalk Developers, click here > <http://forum.world.st/template/NamlServlet.jtp?macro=unsubscribe_by_code&no…> > . > NAML > <http://forum.world.st/template/NamlServlet.jtp?macro=macro_viewer&id=instan…> > ----- Nacho Smalltalker apprentice. Buenos Aires, Argentina. -- View this message in context: http://forum.world.st/Improving-the-documentation-model-tp4820814p4820976.h… Sent from the Pharo Smalltalk Developers mailing list archive at Nabble.com.

April 21, 2015