Hi Stef,

On Sat, Mar 21, 2015 at 8:52 PM, stepharo <stepharo@free.fr> wrote:

Le 21/3/15 13:58, Tudor Girba a ��crit :

Hi,

I fully agree with your API suggestions, but I do not quite understand why you say that it is because of the scripting that the API does not look like this. It's the opposite I think.

When you "script" you want as succinct as possible (so, no moveBehind: and stuff). And you want to gradually add details and not be forced to specify them from the very beginning (so, good defaults). In fact, the rule of thumb that I argue for is that a good scripting (and in fact any API) interface is one that allows you to make a difference with any new line of code. That means that, ideally, we would want every line to be able to live on its own and not require another one. It's obviously not always possible, but I find it helps me when I grow an API.

use the technique you want but to not dillute my point. I do not care how you do it.
I care about having details away.

To me the feel that roassal gives me is that this is a tool to make demo to impress audience
as to grow something, while I think that it could be a killer app with two faces:
predefined compact api and a scripting way where you open the trunk and build your own.

A long script will not impress any audience. These are the same goals, not different. The idea of builders (Grapher is such a builder) is supposed to provide those levels (the basic engine can do everything, and the builder provides a more constrained higher level API). I fully agree that the current builders are not expressive enough. And I also agree that we need a dedicated effort to just making them more compact.

We are fully in sync and I do not dilute your point, but I do not want to leave the impression that "scripting" is something bad, or secondary :).

Cheers,

Doru

��

S.

www.tudorgirba.com

"Every thing has its own flow"