- Pharo-users - lists.pharo.org

Re: [Pharo-users] Question about Morphic in Pharo 4

by Johan Fabry

Thanks for the clear description. I have just 2 things I would like to clarify: > On Dec 19, 2014, at 13:55, Esteban Lorenzano <estebanlm(a)gmail.com> wrote: > > - the metadata itself is not very well defined (I would like something like the ones in VW and StX, but is like a weird array right now), because of this, Spec has created some âin the middleâ way to define specs in a more âdeclarative wayâ, breaking the original design (the one I just pointed) This is the part of Spec that I like the least. But I do not see a nicer way to do it than this âdeclarative wayâ you mention. It is however a complex problem and I welcome any suggestions on how to better address it! > 3rd: Frankly, with this âmore declarative wayâ spec adopted more or less the same path glamour took. But if this is the point, glamour does a really better work on the âdeclarativeâ part. Of course, it does that at the cost of being less reusable, but wellâ¦ we are talking about Spec, not Glaour here :) Yes, that is the typical tradeoff of a domain-specific solution versus a general-purpose solution. Because Glamour is more restricted it can solve this difficult problem in a cleaner way. But if you want to do things that fall outside of the Glamour way of doing things you are in trouble (or even deep trouble. I have experienced that). ---> Save our in-boxes! http://emailcharter.org <--- Johan Fabry - http://pleiad.cl/~jfabry PLEIAD lab - Computer Science Department (DCC) - University of Chile

Dec. 19, 2014

Re: [Pharo-users] Question about Morphic in Pharo 4

by Johan Fabry

Just to be clear: Morphic in Self was very graphical with much emphasis on direct manipulation (IIRC) Would a graphical UI builder solve your problems for you? > On Dec 19, 2014, at 13:32, nacho <0800nacho(a)gmail.com> wrote: > > I too prefer Morphic over Spec. I find Spec too much verbose. And in fact, > Morphic as presented in the Self language it's a much modern approach to > building UIs than Spec which is pure code. So as complicated as it might > have become, I'm still attached to Morphic. > > > > > ----- > Nacho > Smalltalker apprentice. > Buenos Aires, Argentina. > -- > View this message in context: http://forum.world.st/Question-about-Morphic-in-Pharo-4-tp4796331p4796449.h… > Sent from the Pharo Smalltalk Users mailing list archive at Nabble.com. > > ---> Save our in-boxes! http://emailcharter.org <--- Johan Fabry - http://pleiad.cl/~jfabry PLEIAD lab - Computer Science Department (DCC) - University of Chile

Dec. 19, 2014

Re: [Pharo-users] Question about Morphic in Pharo 4

by Johan Fabry

I have some comments and questions inline. Again to clarify: I want to understand what people are thinking about Spec so I appreciate your feedback and I want to keep on asking until I think I really understand. > On Dec 19, 2014, at 13:24, kilon alios <kilon.alios(a)gmail.com> wrote: > > Well Spec from what I understand requires a model for each thing you add to it which makes classes bigger and unecessary complex. The models are the classes of the user interface. Each thing you add is a widget (more or less), and called a model. I do not understand how this differs from Morphic in that if you want to add e.g. a button you need to add the button morph. Can you help me understand? > I also dont like the name defaultSpec which for me mean nothing and creates confusion. Other classes I see use name defaultSpec2 which makes even less sense. OK the name could be better chosen. BTW, you donât need to call it like this, you can just use a pragma instead. This is why some methods are called defaultSpec2 (also a bad name) > Generally speaking Spec is a library that I find very hard to figure out from example and reading the code compared to Morphic. Yes, it is absolutely not designed to be learned by example. I agree with that. If you want to learn by example you should follow the examples in the doc, not browse the code. I understand that not everbody is OK with that. > Also a shortcoming of spec is that is not designed to be custom gui friendly from what I see since it seems to just wrap morphs if you want custom element guis. 100% agree. This is not the focus of Spec. > Also I dont understand why we need initialise and instiate , looks to me like Spec requires too many definitions to add stuff together which is an area that Morphic excel AFAIK where in example of Morphic all you have to do is addMorph: in Spec it appears to me there so many steps. > > If I want to add a button then I should using a single line of code. I donât understand. As you said before, GUI stuff is complex. So I donât see how you can do everything in 1 line of code. For example, how can I add an âOKâ button to a window, in a specific location, with a specific action to be taken in 1 simple line? How can I do that in Morphic? > Generally speaking my Nireas class is an extremely simple GUI that is uneccessary complex. Sure I could brake the GUI to smaller Spec widgets but for me that makes no sense for such a small GUI. I cant see with all this overhead how Spec would be useful for me for very complex guis I want to create in the long run when Morphic design is so clear to me. I think this is a matter of taste so I cannot really comment here except on that I respect that your taste is different from mine :-) > Another thing to note here is that I have read the Spec documentation again and again and it has been a seriously struggle to make sense of Spec because of this complex and weird design. Ok this is a serious problem for the documentation. I want everybody to understand it. So can you clarify why this is a struggle so that we can work on that? (We will be reworking the documentation again one of these days) > Morphic on the other hand has been a walk in the park for some guis I created with it because its design is so simple and elegant. I never read docs on Morphic , I just take a look at Morph examples and immediately understand how things work. Saying that I had issues understanding how treemorph worked and cant say I liked the code. OK taste again. > That also may have to do with how I work which is that I was raised with legos so I love to assemble things together instead of abstracting them away which I think is what Spec tries to do. So Morphic definitely fits my way of thinking better. I think I can safely bet that I have been playing with Lego for longer than you and that my collection is bigger :-) And I donât agree with your observation. The huge Lego creations are possible when you build smaller units that are than plugged together in well-thought out ways. The easy example are the new 1930-style buildings that you build floor by floor ... ---> Save our in-boxes! http://emailcharter.org <--- Johan Fabry - http://pleiad.cl/~jfabry PLEIAD lab - Computer Science Department (DCC) - University of Chile

Dec. 19, 2014

Re: [Pharo-users] Question about Morphic in Pharo 4

by Sean P. DeNigris

jfabry wrote > can you tell me what you find really ugly about Spec Two main things: - Giant nested arrays of literals instead of objects - deeply nested model e.g. 1. DropListExample new openWithSpec 2. Explore window through halos 3. self model model model "really, 3 levels? SpecWindow->MorphicWindowAdapter->WindowModel->NewValueHolder. There is something fishy here" ----- Cheers, Sean -- View this message in context: http://forum.world.st/Question-about-Morphic-in-Pharo-4-tp4796331p4796457.h… Sent from the Pharo Smalltalk Users mailing list archive at Nabble.com.

Dec. 19, 2014

Re: [Pharo-users] Metacello does not load the expected version from ConfigOf

by Dale Henrichs

Usman, With classic Metacello (using the `(ConfigurationOfxxx project version: 'xxx') load` pattern) you can only downgrade via an explicit load of a particular version of the project. When loading projects indirectly via a project reference from another project Metacello is biased towards upgrade. With the Metacello Scripting API[1], you may include an #onDowngradeUseIncoming: clause to selectively permit downgrades: Metacello new configuration: 'DummyParser'; version: '1.0'; repository: '???'; onDowngradeUseIncoming: #('PetitParser'); load. For additional downgrade options see[2]. Since you are interested in using a specific version of a project you may also be interested in locking the project[3][4]. With a `lock` Metacello will not upgrade or downgrade the project but always `honor` the lock unless an #onLock: clause is used ... Note that for `locking` to work, you must use the Metacello Scripting API to do all of your project loads ... Dale [1] https://github.com/dalehenrich/metacello-work/blob/master/docs/MetacelloUse… [2] https://github.com/dalehenrich/metacello-work/blob/master/docs/MetacelloUse… [3] https://github.com/dalehenrich/metacello-work/blob/master/docs/MetacelloUse… [4] https://github.com/dalehenrich/metacello-work/blob/master/docs/LockCommandR… On 12/19/2014 07:44 AM, Usman Bhatti wrote: > Hi all, > > I am trying to load a specific version of PetitParser in a Moose > image. A Moose image comes with the latest development version of > PetitParser. So, I am trying to downgrade to an older version. So, > when I load the version manually, older versions of the packages are > loaded: > (ConfigurationOfPetitParser project version: '1.51') load > > But when I try to load the same version within my ConfigOf the > expected packages are not loaded and list of the PetitParser packages > loaded remains unchanged. Here is how my baseline looks like: > > ConfigurationOfDummyParser>>baseline01: spec > <version: '0.1-baseline'> > > spec for: #'common' do: [ > spec blessing: #'baseline'. > spec project: 'PetitParser' with: [ > spec > className: #ConfigurationOfPetitParser; > versionString: '1.51'; > repository: 'http://smalltalkhub.com/mc/Moose/PetitParser/main/' ]. ]. > > I also tried creating a version but it didn't help. > > ConfigurationOfDummyParser>>version10: spec > <version: '1.0' imports: #('0.1-baseline' )> > > spec for: #'common' do: [ > spec blessing: #'stable'. > spec description: 'version 1.0'. > spec author: 'usmanbhatti'. > spec timestamp: '12/19/2014 16:35'. > spec project: 'PetitParser' with: '1.51'. ]. > > I also had a look at the package the configuration tries to load and > the list shows correct packages to be loaded (see screenshot). > > Does anyone have an idea what may be problematic in my code or that of > Metacello? I am attaching the code of my ConfigOf for a Moose image. > > Thanks in advance. > > UsmanInline image 1 > >

Dec. 19, 2014

Re: [Pharo-users] Question about Morphic in Pharo 4

by Esteban Lorenzano

if I can say it, I think Spec has several design flaws, that prevent us to actually use it productively. 1st: I believe Spec is 80% of what Morphic should do by it self, but since is now that monster no body wants to take by the horns, Spec provides a layer. 2nd: The original idea of Spec is to produce composable objects that can be some-kind described and then reused by plugging them, but - is an idea that has a lot of sense is we have a UI builderâ¦ which we dont. 2 - the metadata itself is not very well defined (I would like something like the ones in VW and StX, but is like a weird array right now), because of this, Spec has created some âin the middleâ way to define specs in a more âdeclarative wayâ, breaking the original design (the one I just pointed) 3rd: Frankly, with this âmore declarative wayâ spec adopted more or less the same path glamour took. But if this is the point, glamour does a really better work on the âdeclarativeâ part. Of course, it does that at the cost of being less reusable, but wellâ¦ we are talking about Spec, not Glaour here :) So, to summarise, IMHO: - Spec wouldnât have much sense in a well-defined, clean, Morphic - Even as a layer, Spec still does not has much sense without: -- a rebuild of the descriptive model -- an UI builder to use it. cheers, Esteban > On 19 Dec 2014, at 17:32, nacho <0800nacho(a)gmail.com> wrote: > > I too prefer Morphic over Spec. I find Spec too much verbose. And in fact, > Morphic as presented in the Self language it's a much modern approach to > building UIs than Spec which is pure code. So as complicated as it might > have become, I'm still attached to Morphic. > > > > > ----- > Nacho > Smalltalker apprentice. > Buenos Aires, Argentina. > -- > View this message in context: http://forum.world.st/Question-about-Morphic-in-Pharo-4-tp4796331p4796449.h… > Sent from the Pharo Smalltalk Users mailing list archive at Nabble.com. >

Dec. 19, 2014

Re: [Pharo-users] Question about Morphic in Pharo 4

by nacho

Esteban, I agree 100%. In fact that was, in part, the reason of my question. As I don't see a Spec UI coming soon I was wondering if perhaps Morphic will be trimmed in Pharo 4. Thanks Cheers Nacho ----- Nacho Smalltalker apprentice. Buenos Aires, Argentina. -- View this message in context: http://forum.world.st/Question-about-Morphic-in-Pharo-4-tp4796331p4796452.h… Sent from the Pharo Smalltalk Users mailing list archive at Nabble.com.

Dec. 19, 2014

Re: [Pharo-users] Question about Morphic in Pharo 4

by nacho

I too prefer Morphic over Spec. I find Spec too much verbose. And in fact, Morphic as presented in the Self language it's a much modern approach to building UIs than Spec which is pure code. So as complicated as it might have become, I'm still attached to Morphic. ----- Nacho Smalltalker apprentice. Buenos Aires, Argentina. -- View this message in context: http://forum.world.st/Question-about-Morphic-in-Pharo-4-tp4796331p4796449.h… Sent from the Pharo Smalltalk Users mailing list archive at Nabble.com.

Dec. 19, 2014

Re: [Pharo-users] Question about Morphic in Pharo 4

by kilon alios

Well Spec from what I understand requires a model for each thing you add to it which makes classes bigger and unecessary complex. I also dont like the name defaultSpec which for me mean nothing and creates confusion. Other classes I see use name defaultSpec2 which makes even less sense. Generally speaking Spec is a library that I find very hard to figure out from example and reading the code compared to Morphic. Also a shortcoming of spec is that is not designed to be custom gui friendly from what I see since it seems to just wrap morphs if you want custom element guis. Also I dont understand why we need initialise and instiate , looks to me like Spec requires too many definitions to add stuff together which is an area that Morphic excel AFAIK where in example of Morphic all you have to do is addMorph: in Spec it appears to me there so many steps. If I want to add a button then I should using a single line of code. Generally speaking my Nireas class is an extremely simple GUI that is uneccessary complex. Sure I could brake the GUI to smaller Spec widgets but for me that makes no sense for such a small GUI. I cant see with all this overhead how Spec would be useful for me for very complex guis I want to create in the long run when Morphic design is so clear to me. Another thing to note here is that I have read the Spec documentation again and again and it has been a seriously struggle to make sense of Spec because of this complex and weird design. Morphic on the other hand has been a walk in the park for some guis I created with it because its design is so simple and elegant. I never read docs on Morphic , I just take a look at Morph examples and immediately understand how things work. Saying that I had issues understanding how treemorph worked and cant say I liked the code. That also may have to do with how I work which is that I was raised with legos so I love to assemble things together instead of abstracting them away which I think is what Spec tries to do. So Morphic definitely fits my way of thinking better. On Fri, Dec 19, 2014 at 5:50 PM, Johan Fabry <jfabry(a)dcc.uchile.cl> wrote: > > > On Dec 19, 2014, at 07:44, kilon alios <kilon.alios(a)gmail.com> wrote: > > > > See this is where we get in the area of personal preference, I find Spec > very ugly. I mean really , really ugly. I used it to develop my theme > manager Nireas and I definetly dont like its workflow and now I am > seriously looking into porting Nireas back to Morphic and developing my own > library to fix Morphic shortcomings. > > I ask this to understand the problem: can you tell me what you find really > ugly about Spec, why you donât like its workflow, and why Morphic does it > better in your opinion? > > TIA > > ---> Save our in-boxes! http://emailcharter.org <--- > > Johan Fabry - http://pleiad.cl/~jfabry > PLEIAD lab - Computer Science Department (DCC) - University of Chile > > >

Dec. 19, 2014

Re: [Pharo-users] Question about Morphic in Pharo 4

by Johan Fabry

> On Dec 19, 2014, at 07:44, kilon alios <kilon.alios(a)gmail.com> wrote: > > See this is where we get in the area of personal preference, I find Spec very ugly. I mean really , really ugly. I used it to develop my theme manager Nireas and I definetly dont like its workflow and now I am seriously looking into porting Nireas back to Morphic and developing my own library to fix Morphic shortcomings. I ask this to understand the problem: can you tell me what you find really ugly about Spec, why you donât like its workflow, and why Morphic does it better in your opinion? TIA ---> Save our in-boxes! http://emailcharter.org <--- Johan Fabry - http://pleiad.cl/~jfabry PLEIAD lab - Computer Science Department (DCC) - University of Chile

Dec. 19, 2014