Default list of common system protocols
Just a random idea as I am working on the PharoLaserGame tutorial, and I see the need to repetitively tell the reader to create the same standard protocols on each new class, e.g. accessing, initialization, testing.... It might be useful for newly defined classes to pre-populate the System Browser Protocols List with a small set of the most common protocols...etc. These could be displayed in grey similar to extension methods until they actually contained anything. Obviously this would not suit everyone but might be very useful to novices. You might consider it a form of cultural training/normalism. Is is practical to have such a common subset of protocols? The danger of course is that the list grows to an unwieldy size. Now I am not such a novice, but personally I'd find this somewhat useful day to day. Enough rambling, what are your thoughts? cheers -ben
how about "categorize uncategorized methods" if a naming scheme for methods is followed the whole process could be automated if its not automated enough already. Generally speak classes with tons of methods are seen and rightly so as bad design (See Morph class) . I have said this before if I was not so lazy , unexperienced pharo developer I would have created a tag system for methods and classes that would turn protocols and categories obsolete. Similar to tag for stackoverflow questions would help you to quickly located methods and classes and even create your own groups directly. So many ideas but unfortunately I need to time to do them. On Sun, Jun 22, 2014 at 3:30 PM, Ben Coman <btc@openinworld.com> wrote:
Just a random idea as I am working on the PharoLaserGame tutorial, and I see the need to repetitively tell the reader to create the same standard protocols on each new class, e.g. accessing, initialization, testing....
It might be useful for newly defined classes to pre-populate the System Browser Protocols List with a small set of the most common protocols...etc. These could be displayed in grey similar to extension methods until they actually contained anything. Obviously this would not suit everyone but might be very useful to novices. You might consider it a form of cultural training/normalism. Is is practical to have such a common subset of protocols? The danger of course is that the list grows to an unwieldy size. Now I am not such a novice, but personally I'd find this somewhat useful day to day.
Enough rambling, what are your thoughts? cheers -ben
It would be better to have a kind of protocol templates thing. Why so? Because when one works with Seaside for example, protocols are like accessing, rendering, ... which is different from doing Morphic or Spec things. There is also the fact that then we see things like rendering-xxx, rendering-yyy etc. I doubt any of this can be automated. It is something that annoys me all day long, so, maybe a Nautilus plugin offering this protocol template support would bring some relief. How are people handling this aspect in their day to day coding? One can always copy a "Template class" to reduce the pain but that is not ideal. Phil On Sun, Jun 22, 2014 at 2:35 PM, kilon alios <kilon.alios@gmail.com> wrote:
how about "categorize uncategorized methods" if a naming scheme for methods is followed the whole process could be automated if its not automated enough already. Generally speak classes with tons of methods are seen and rightly so as bad design (See Morph class) .
I have said this before if I was not so lazy , unexperienced pharo developer I would have created a tag system for methods and classes that would turn protocols and categories obsolete. Similar to tag for stackoverflow questions would help you to quickly located methods and classes and even create your own groups directly. So many ideas but unfortunately I need to time to do them.
On Sun, Jun 22, 2014 at 3:30 PM, Ben Coman <btc@openinworld.com> wrote:
Just a random idea as I am working on the PharoLaserGame tutorial, and I see the need to repetitively tell the reader to create the same standard protocols on each new class, e.g. accessing, initialization, testing....
It might be useful for newly defined classes to pre-populate the System Browser Protocols List with a small set of the most common protocols...etc. These could be displayed in grey similar to extension methods until they actually contained anything. Obviously this would not suit everyone but might be very useful to novices. You might consider it a form of cultural training/normalism. Is is practical to have such a common subset of protocols? The danger of course is that the list grows to an unwieldy size. Now I am not such a novice, but personally I'd find this somewhat useful day to day.
Enough rambling, what are your thoughts? cheers -ben
if someone want to do a final pass on the recategorizer that I harvested and improved we could have a much better categorizer in the system Because we can define the rules we want and it can take into account the root a hierarchy or other... My code is at: MCHttpRepository location: 'http://www.smalltalkhub.com/mc/StephaneDucasse/AutomaticMethodCategorizer/ma...' user: '' On 22/6/14 14:30, Ben Coman wrote:
Just a random idea as I am working on the PharoLaserGame tutorial, and I see the need to repetitively tell the reader to create the same standard protocols on each new class, e.g. accessing, initialization, testing....
It might be useful for newly defined classes to pre-populate the System Browser Protocols List with a small set of the most common protocols...etc. These could be displayed in grey similar to extension methods until they actually contained anything. Obviously this would not suit everyone but might be very useful to novices. You might consider it a form of cultural training/normalism. Is is practical to have such a common subset of protocols? The danger of course is that the list grows to an unwieldy size. Now I am not such a novice, but personally I'd find this somewhat useful day to day.
Enough rambling, what are your thoughts? cheers -ben
stepharo wrote:
if someone want to do a final pass on the recategorizer that I harvested and improved we could have a much better categorizer in the system
Because we can define the rules we want and it can take into account the root a hierarchy or other...
My code is at:
MCHttpRepository location: 'http://www.smalltalkhub.com/mc/StephaneDucasse/AutomaticMethodCategorizer/ma...'
user: ''
Thanks Steph. I am interested in having a look, just not for a while. I'll tag it for later. cheers -ben
On 22/6/14 14:30, Ben Coman wrote:
Just a random idea as I am working on the PharoLaserGame tutorial, and I see the need to repetitively tell the reader to create the same standard protocols on each new class, e.g. accessing, initialization, testing....
It might be useful for newly defined classes to pre-populate the System Browser Protocols List with a small set of the most common protocols...etc. These could be displayed in grey similar to extension methods until they actually contained anything. Obviously this would not suit everyone but might be very useful to novices. You might consider it a form of cultural training/normalism. Is is practical to have such a common subset of protocols? The danger of course is that the list grows to an unwieldy size. Now I am not such a novice, but personally I'd find this somewhat useful day to day.
Enough rambling, what are your thoughts? cheers -ben
Le 22 juin 2014 18:04, "Ben Coman" <btc@openinworld.com> a écrit :
stepharo wrote:
if someone want to do a final pass on the recategorizer that I harvested
and improved we could have a much better categorizer
in the system
Because we can define the rules we want and it can take into account the root a hierarchy or other...
My code is at:
MCHttpRepository location: ' http://www.smalltalkhub.com/mc/StephaneDucasse/AutomaticMethodCategorizer/ma...'
user: ''
Thanks Steph. I am interested in having a look, just not for a while. I'll tag it for later. cheers -ben
I'll have a shot too. Phil
On 22/6/14 14:30, Ben Coman wrote:
Just a random idea as I am working on the PharoLaserGame tutorial, and
I see the need to repetitively tell the reader to create the same standard protocols on each new class, e.g. accessing, initialization, testing....
It might be useful for newly defined classes to pre-populate the System
Browser Protocols List with a small set of the most common protocols...etc. These could be displayed in grey similar to extension methods until they actually contained anything. Obviously this would not suit everyone but might be very useful to novices. You might consider it a form of cultural training/normalism.
Is is practical to have such a common subset of protocols? The danger of course is that the list grows to an unwieldy size. Now I am not such a novice, but personally I'd find this somewhat useful day to day.
Enough rambling, what are your thoughts? cheers -ben
participants (4)
-
Ben Coman -
kilon alios -
phil＠highoctane.be -
stepharo