On Tue, Sep 16, 2014 at 2:55 PM, Chris Muller <ma.chris.m@gmail.com> wrote:

...

...

On Tue, Sep 16, 2014 at 2:18 PM, Esteban A. Maringolo <emaringolo@gmail.com> wrote:

...

2014-09-16 14:37 GMT-03:00 Sebastian Sastre <sebastian@flowingconcept.com>:

...

Well, a while ago in the business list I’ve raised the idea that making Pharo able to do native OS windows would help it to gain market space (as in the opposite of staying at the margins of it).

So, I’d be very positively curious about being able to use Pharo to do multiplatform native apps

The trend is shifting to mobile devices, iOS and Android are eating the whole market. So if it is about the potential market size, native mobile (tablets/phones/TVs) should come as the first option, before desktop.

+1. Desktop apps are "dead" aren't they? I'm doubtful that native windows would help Smalltalk's popularity, as evidenced, I guess, by the fact VA and VW have supported them for a long time; did they take over the world yet?

...

For development, native windows could prove very useful.

How so? For me, one of the worst aspects of trying to develop in VisualAge or VisualWorks *is* the multiple host windows. It makes it virtually impossible to work in more than one image, and reinforces the "grand cathedral" thinking about Smalltalk; e.g. you're not supposed to want or need anything outside your one, true, image. Dinosaur!

I constantly work in multiple images, not only for separate projects but for the ability to quickly and easily fork images for multicore processing on the same project. Other times simply to try something temporary and possibly dangerous. The memory isolation is critical for productivity, the UI isolation for usability, and the multi-core capability for performance.

I think we should focus on how to move to more and smaller intercommunicating images rather than one big image. I understand its appeal for _deploying_ an off-the-shelf desktop app, but I'm not aware of any other use-cases where multiple host windows would be preferable to one host window per image.

That all makes sense from an experienced Smalltalker's POV. But for people exploring the technology the lack of native windows is usually a huge turn-off and often reason to reject the technology. The nice thing about Vassili's work is that it allows one to have *both*, without losing window state, and one can switch dynamically, and, IIRC, mix both, e.g. for development. So it isn't an exclusive choice.

Ah, good. Choice is good. :)

...

Re VisualWorks' support for native windows it was an essential component to VW staying in the market-place. If it hadn't supported native windows it would have died the commercial death long ago. Pre-web, one /had/ to have native windows for industry, and now with mobile native look and feel is even more important. Further, VWs huge lack in its GUI was lack of support for native widgets. We always used to tout MSWord's use of emulated widgets (apparently for performance reasons) as a defence but it didn't convince. The customer was always provided with poor emulations and a limited supply. IMO, native widgets would have made a big difference in hwo well-received VW was for GUI applications, where those using Windows could always turn to VSE.

Yes, I don't doubt that at all, especially during the time when Windows NT / XP was the defacto platform one could expect anywhere and everywhere.

I am curious now, however, in this technologically-splintered world where Windows XP dying out, Windows 7 barely hanging on, everybody hating Windows 8, and the promise of cheap upgrade to Windows 9, Plus don't forget OSX widgets and then all the "widgets" people use on their phones and tablets being basically different from app to app: what IS "native" widgets these days?

Native widgets means simply use of the platforms native widget set in constructing user interfaces. I don't dsee different widgets across iOS devices. I see lots of consistency.

I wonder what those manager folks who shunned the non-native-but-perfectly-usable-and-in-some-cases-better widgets are asking for now? :)

I assume good looking applications using native widgets in the host look-and-feel that follow the platform's style and usability guidelines. Thats a reasonable request. Look at how coherent and well-engineered the interface components in something like Apple's iOS is are and one soon realises one the one hand the interface quality is high and on the other that the only feasible way to construct interactive applications in that context is to build it out of those widgets, not emulate, not provide an alternative. There are exceptions, e.g. parts of games where all one needs is touch events and all imagery is custom. But for stereotypical interaction one surely has to use native widgets. -- best, Eliot