Hi,

On Mon, Dec 8, 2014 at 4:51 PM, Torsten Bergmann <astares@gmx.de> wrote:

>And Playground would match so well the marketing term of "playing with live objects".

Sorry - but to me it looks like you were catched too much into: now we have to be more modern
or rival with all this "lively" stuff (Lighttable IDE, Apple Swift, ...). We all know
that being "lively" is something Smalltalk had already years ago and in the best way one
can do it.

It's not. Smalltalk model is live, the ui has always been crappy. We have to catch up and stop pretending we are in front because we are not. We can be and we will be, but there is plenty of hard work in front of us.

>You might say that Playground is not the only place where people can play with objects, but

Same argument against Workspace is an argument against Playground then. Any reason
you did not continue after your "but"?

Sorry. Your mail was too long and I missed this one :). I wanted to say that people can play in the playground, but also play in other places. It is not the same with the usual meaning of work: work is done in the work place / work space.��

��

>Not all. Swift calls it Playground (yes, they copied us ;))

Because Swift uses this does mean ... (***drumrol***) ... NOTHING. Will we rename BlockClosures
to Closures now? Or introduce curly braces? ;)

I did not say that. I simply said that not all environments use the term Workspace.

>You are looking at it from a technical point of view. Yes, it's just a merge of two features,
>but it is the end experience that is so much different.

You said it yourself: we just present it differently. Nothing more. Does a concept really justify
a new name if only presented differently?

It's not "just". It's key. It really is :). We have to stop being programmers for a second if we want to produce a proper user experience. Users do not care about what it takes technically. They care about their mental models. This is what has significantly changed.

��

I really doubt! Otherwise we would have had to rename the concept of a "System Browser" anytime
we improved the end user experience (which differs also if you compare old style Squeak browsers
and new Nautilus implementation).

Nautilus is a name of a specific system browser, not a concept. It never wanted to be anything else than a System Browser. Btw, the future coding solution will unlikely be called System Browser - ��:).

>That is why I think we have conceptually a different solution than we ever had.

I do not see where it is different now. Diving into object was alway possible with existing tools.

That is not the point. That's a technical detail. The fact that I can get several times faster in creating a visualization or in playing with a query script is what matters.

��

>>3. There is a "Workspace open" but no "Playground open" possibility.
>��I think I do not get this point. What do you mean?
��
Evaluate

�� "Workspace open"�� => it opens a window

�� "Playground open"�� => not defined

It is defined:

GTPlayground open

Still, where does this argument fit?��

>>4. Having two separate tools "Workspace" and "Playground" with nearly similar
>>�� goals (write scripts and inspect objects) would be confusing for newbees.
>>
>>Maybe we could set up a "community voting" somewhere.
>��
>Perhaps.
��
If we would like to work as a community and respect other opinions it would
make sense.

I think this is what the mail was all about, was it not?

��

So far I guess there are three options discussed:

�� a) Keep existing "Workspace" tool and add additional "Playground" tool
�� b) One tool with new name "Playground" (no workspace)
�� c) One tool with known name "Workspace" by renaming the Playground tool

Sure. But, this makes some sense only after we have laid out arguments which is what we do right now.

��

>Good point! Can you add a bug issue for this?

https://pharo.fogbugz.com/f/cases/14578/Ask-before-saving-in-the-cloud

Thanks!

Doru

www.tudorgirba.com

"Every thing has its own flow"