Re: [Pharo-project] TxTextMorph based on new text model
I don't. Do you have link?
Here is the paper: http://www.vpri.org/pdf/m2010002_lobjects.pdf And you can download the image with the actual active essay from http://tinlizzie.org/lesserphic2/Text%20Field%20for%20LObject.zip
Hello 2013/1/24 DeNigris Sean <sean@clipperadams.com>
I don't. Do you have link?
Here is the paper: http://www.vpri.org/pdf/m2010002_lobjects.pdf And you can download the image with the actual active essay from http://tinlizzie.org/lesserphic2/Text%20Field%20for%20LObject.zip
I read paper and play with image. And I have not good impression about this work. First they present text with real objects for each letter. Each letter is actually big object with x, y, predecessor, successor and other attributes. How much memory such model required? Do you think that presenting any letter with real object (not just character) is sufficient for modern computers? I think not. Of course such model significantly simplified all logic around text layout stuff. But I think it is too expensive. Another thing which I always not agree is introduction scripting languages inside smalltalk. In paper all layout logic (and editing too) programmed by "system of rules" in special scripting language (very similar to smalltalk). If you look deeply you will see that rules call other rules with same way methods call other methods in basic smalltalk code. So I don't see any value of rules idea expressed with special scripts. In spite of my non positive opinion I like what they do inside rules. It is really simple and understandable code. Maybe I will try reuse something. Best regards, Denis
This was experimental. Do not lose your time with it. Now you know that you should continue :) This was to prove that "kids" could define even texteditor with simple rules. Stef
Here is the paper: http://www.vpri.org/pdf/m2010002_lobjects.pdf And you can download the image with the actual active essay from http://tinlizzie.org/lesserphic2/Text%20Field%20for%20LObject.zip
I read paper and play with image. And I have not good impression about this work.
First they present text with real objects for each letter. Each letter is actually big object with x, y, predecessor, successor and other attributes. How much memory such model required? Do you think that presenting any letter with real object (not just character) is sufficient for modern computers? I think not. Of course such model significantly simplified all logic around text layout stuff. But I think it is too expensive.
Another thing which I always not agree is introduction scripting languages inside smalltalk. In paper all layout logic (and editing too) programmed by "system of rules" in special scripting language (very similar to smalltalk). If you look deeply you will see that rules call other rules with same way methods call other methods in basic smalltalk code. So I don't see any value of rules idea expressed with special scripts. In spite of my non positive opinion I like what they do inside rules. It is really simple and understandable code. Maybe I will try reuse something.
Best regards, Denis
On 28 January 2013 19:37, Stéphane Ducasse <stephane.ducasse@inria.fr> wrote:
This was experimental. Do not lose your time with it. Now you know that you should continue :) This was to prove that "kids" could define even texteditor with simple rules.
that 'script' called DSL :) so, yes.. you can write text editor with 10 lines of DSL code.. + 100+ lines of code for DSL parser + numerous hours for developers to master your DSL before they can understand/change the code :)
Stef
Here is the paper: http://www.vpri.org/pdf/m2010002_lobjects.pdf And you can download the image with the actual active essay from http://tinlizzie.org/lesserphic2/Text%20Field%20for%20LObject.zip
I read paper and play with image. And I have not good impression about this work.
First they present text with real objects for each letter. Each letter is actually big object with x, y, predecessor, successor and other attributes. How much memory such model required? Do you think that presenting any letter with real object (not just character) is sufficient for modern computers? I think not. Of course such model significantly simplified all logic around text layout stuff. But I think it is too expensive.
Another thing which I always not agree is introduction scripting languages inside smalltalk. In paper all layout logic (and editing too) programmed by "system of rules" in special scripting language (very similar to smalltalk). If you look deeply you will see that rules call other rules with same way methods call other methods in basic smalltalk code. So I don't see any value of rules idea expressed with special scripts. In spite of my non positive opinion I like what they do inside rules. It is really simple and understandable code. Maybe I will try reuse something.
Best regards, Denis
-- Best regards, Igor Stasenko.
Hi 2013/1/29 Igor Stasenko <siguctua@gmail.com>
On 28 January 2013 19:37, Stéphane Ducasse <stephane.ducasse@inria.fr> wrote:
This was experimental. Do not lose your time with it. Now you know that you should continue :) This was to prove that "kids" could define even texteditor with simple rules.
that 'script' called DSL :)
so, yes.. you can write text editor with 10 lines of DSL code.. + 100+ lines of code for DSL parser + numerous hours for developers to master your DSL before they can understand/change the code :)
I think you all agree that smalltalk is powerfull enough to be DSL for any domain/problem. No needs for special syntax
Stef
Here is the paper: http://www.vpri.org/pdf/m2010002_lobjects.pdf And you can download the image with the actual active essay from http://tinlizzie.org/lesserphic2/Text%20Field%20for%20LObject.zip
I read paper and play with image. And I have not good impression about this work.
First they present text with real objects for each letter. Each letter is actually big object with x, y, predecessor, successor and other attributes. How much memory such model required? Do you think that presenting any letter with real object (not just character) is sufficient for modern computers? I think not. Of course such model significantly simplified all logic around text layout stuff. But I think it is too expensive.
Another thing which I always not agree is introduction scripting languages inside smalltalk. In paper all layout logic (and editing too) programmed by "system of rules" in special scripting language (very similar to smalltalk). If you look deeply you will see that rules call other rules with same way methods call other methods in basic smalltalk code. So I don't see any value of rules idea expressed with special scripts. In spite of my non positive opinion I like what they do inside rules. It is really simple and understandable code. Maybe I will try reuse something.
Best regards, Denis
-- Best regards, Igor Stasenko.
Denis Kudriashov wrote
I like what they do inside rules. It is really simple and understandable code. Maybe I will try reuse something.
Very good. I am not suggesting we copy the exact approach, just learn any lessons so we don't have to repeat the mistakes of the past. Sean -- View this message in context: http://forum.world.st/TxTextMorph-based-on-new-text-model-tp4663219p4665942.... Sent from the Pharo Smalltalk mailing list archive at Nabble.com.
Thanks again for tackling this! I'm definitely available to collaborate :) Denis Kudriashov wrote
Do you think that presenting any letter with real object (not just character) is sufficient for modern computers? I think not. Of course such model significantly simplified all logic around text layout stuff. But I think it is too expensive.
I don't know how efficient it would be, but how much text do we really layout at once? If it makes the code simpler and more beautiful, then it would be my starting point. Doing otherwise is premature optimization. Denis Kudriashov wrote
Another thing which I always not agree is introduction scripting languages inside smalltalk... [but] I like what they do inside rules. It is really simple and understandable code.
Yes, I think a special scripting language would be way outside the bounds of Pharo, but the rules idea simplicity of that style could be great for us :) Cheers, Sean -- View this message in context: http://forum.world.st/TxTextMorph-based-on-new-text-model-tp4663219p4669991.... Sent from the Pharo Smalltalk mailing list archive at Nabble.com.
Hello 2013/2/15 Sean P. DeNigris <sean@clipperadams.com>
I don't know how efficient it would be, but how much text do we really layout at once? If it makes the code simpler and more beautiful, then it would be my starting point. Doing otherwise is premature optimization.
I talk about amount of memory which required for text model where each character is separated "big" object. For example, I have small screen laptop and It contains nearly 8000 characters with single 9'pt font which filled full screen. For big monitors I think it will be ~ 32000 characters. For my daily usage I have nearly 20 opened windows with some text (browser pages, articles). And I have nearly 50 saved latest closed windows at history pane. So such text model required significant amount of objects to cover my example. But I don't know is it really bad or not. Actually I agree with your point:
If it makes the code simpler and more beautiful, then it would be my starting point
And that's why I like what guys implemented. Good experiment. In any case TxText is attempt to get clean object implementation of "text stuff" based on tests. So with little steps we can extend it and add new features. Now TxText can be used instead labels (not editable text morphs). Soon we will have cursor navigation, text selection and editing. I work on cursor now. (I mean visual part of TxText project). Best regards, Denis
participants (5)
-
DeNigris Sean -
Denis Kudriashov -
Igor Stasenko -
Sean P. DeNigris
-
Stéphane Ducasse