Yes, it’s great to have an outside view of these things and have a well-written article with these tips. Maybe a link could be made on the documentation page?

On May 25, 2015, at 11:52, Sven Van Caekenberghe <sven@stfx.eu> wrote:

Great, thank you, it is important to help newcomers over these stumbling blocks that we no longer see.

...

On 25 May 2015, at 16:38, Avdi Grimm <avdi@avdi.org> wrote:

FWIW, I saw that other folks were getting confused by some of the same things that tripped me up initially, so I wrote up some tips here: http://devblog.avdi.org/2015/05/25/some-pharo-4-getting-started-tips/

---> Save our in-boxes! http://emailcharter.org <--- Johan Fabry - http://pleiad.cl/~jfabry PLEIAD lab - Computer Science Department (DCC) - University of Chile

Ben Coman wrote

We should at least change the Nautilus title bar to "Nautilus System Browser" (or just "System Browser" ?)

Part of the problem is that we have overloaded system categories to package code for SCM. System categories should be tags (preferably multiple allowed) which offer a logical view of the system. Packages, the POV we show now, are orthogonal and much less useful for users. The other complication is that we have jumped onto the fad now to have cool names for all software projects which offer no guidance as to what the code actually does - a la Ruby, Sinatra, Rails. While this mysteriousness may generate excitement for the project, it seems far less useful once we integrate things in the image. What does/could Nautilus mean to a new user? Taking a cue from Mac - the core apps are called Mail, Contacts, Maps, Notes; not Sandcastle, Cabana, SkippingStone, and Umbrella ;) At least Opal has the word Compiler attached to it! ----- Cheers, Sean -- View this message in context: http://forum.world.st/Some-Pharo-4-Getting-Started-tips-tp4828493p4828538.ht... Sent from the Pharo Smalltalk Users mailing list archive at Nabble.com.

On Tue, May 26, 2015 at 8:50 AM, Sean P. DeNigris <sean@clipperadams.com> wrote:

Ben Coman wrote

...

We should at least change the Nautilus title bar to "Nautilus System Browser" (or just "System Browser" ?)

Part of the problem is that we have overloaded system categories to package code for SCM. System categories should be tags (preferably multiple allowed) which offer a logical view of the system. Packages, the POV we show now, are orthogonal and much less useful for users.

The other complication is that we have jumped onto the fad now to have cool names for all software projects which offer no guidance as to what the code actually does - a la Ruby, Sinatra, Rails. While this mysteriousness may generate excitement for the project, it seems far less useful once we integrate things in the image. What does/could Nautilus mean to a new user? Taking a cue from Mac - the core apps are called Mail, Contacts, Maps, Notes; not Sandcastle, Cabana, SkippingStone, and Umbrella ;) At least Opal has the word Compiler attached to it!

Agreed. Also take a cue from Microsoft and their successful applications (I wonder what they could possibly be uesed for?): * Word * SQLServer * Internet Explorer * Publisher * Media Player Of course the incumbent players have the luxury of already having an audience to take the dominant position on the app names. But the situation is a bit the same for tools delivered by by default with the standard Image. cheers -ben

On Wed, May 27, 2015 at 1:08 AM, Esteban Lorenzano <estebanlm@gmail.com> wrote:

Hi,

...

On 26 May 2015, at 18:16, Ben Coman <btc@openInWorld.com> wrote:

On Tue, May 26, 2015 at 8:50 AM, Sean P. DeNigris <sean@clipperadams.com> wrote:

...

Ben Coman wrote

...

We should at least change the Nautilus title bar to "Nautilus System Browser" (or just "System Browser" ?)

Part of the problem is that we have overloaded system categories to package code for SCM. System categories should be tags (preferably multiple allowed) which offer a logical view of the system. Packages, the POV we show now, are orthogonal and much less useful for users.

The other complication is that we have jumped onto the fad now to have cool names for all software projects which offer no guidance as to what the code actually does - a la Ruby, Sinatra, Rails. While this mysteriousness may generate excitement for the project, it seems far less useful once we integrate things in the image. What does/could Nautilus mean to a new user? Taking a cue from Mac - the core apps are called Mail, Contacts, Maps, Notes; not Sandcastle, Cabana, SkippingStone, and Umbrella ;) At least Opal has the word Compiler attached to it!

Agreed. Also take a cue from Microsoft and their successful applications (I wonder what they could possibly be uesed for?): * Word * SQLServer * Internet Explorer * Publisher * Media Player

Of course the incumbent players have the luxury of already having an audience to take the dominant position on the app names. But the situation is a bit the same for tools delivered by by default with the standard Image.

I disagree with this way. We are not building an OS (regardless the original intentions of smalltalk) and this profusion of names are generating more confusion than benefits, thinking on new users. For me, intention revealing names needs to be applied not just to the methods and classes we code, but also the tools we use. Then, fantasy names are just that, fantasy. In fact, I was planning a couple of sessions to get an idea of how can we do to have the system in a more clear way. Something like:

- System Browser (Nautilus)

then if we change it it can be

- System Browser (GCoder) (Or whatever the name gtools guys are planning). - System Browser (AltBrowser)

or whatever… same for other “mysterious” tools like monticello (who can know that monticello is a SCM, as a newbie?). A lot better:

- SCM (Monticello) - SCM (Other)

etc. So… I think is better to change “Nautilus” title to “System Browser”.

The potential downside is a newcomer wanting to look look into the System Browser implementation, and not finding a class named "System Browser" to review. Maybe they would discover the ImplementationClass (e.g. Nautilus) anyway by digging into the tool using halos (?).

Esteban

...

cheers -ben

On Tue, May 26, 2015 at 1:27 PM Esteban Lorenzano <estebanlm@gmail.com> wrote:

or we can rename it as "System Browser (Nautilus)” in the title, or something like that

I think this is ideal. I remember back when I used to use Perl, and it had CPAN, which was great. The only problem was that someone would say "use the XML library!" and you'd look in CPAN and there'd be xml and xmllib and libxml and fastxml or whatever, and you'd be like "uh... which one would that be?" Ruby went the other way entirely, with idiosyncratic names like "Nokogiri". The obvious down side is that if you see that in an app's dependencies and you're a newbie, you have no fricking clue what it is. The upside, though, is that if someone tells you "use Nokogiri!" there is zero ambiguity about what you're supposed to use. It gives the project a distinct, memorable personality. If you can keep distinctive project names, but also name menus and title bars such that they link the distinct project to the *role* that project plays, you've got the best of both worlds.

I like your point. Please keep idiosyncratic names because we can build marketing with them. My computer is not just Computer your phone is not just Phone :) Even your shoes are not Shoes So brands are important Pharo is not Programming Language! Le 27/5/15 00:59, Avdi Grimm a écrit :

On Tue, May 26, 2015 at 1:27 PM Esteban Lorenzano <estebanlm@gmail.com <mailto:estebanlm@gmail.com>> wrote:

...

or we can rename it as "System Browser (Nautilus)” in the title, or something like that

I think this is ideal.

I remember back when I used to use Perl, and it had CPAN, which was great. The only problem was that someone would say "use the XML library!" and you'd look in CPAN and there'd be xml and xmllib and libxml and fastxml or whatever, and you'd be like "uh... which one would that be?"

Ruby went the other way entirely, with idiosyncratic names like "Nokogiri". The obvious down side is that if you see that in an app's dependencies and you're a newbie, you have no fricking clue what it is. The upside, though, is that if someone tells you "use Nokogiri!" there is zero ambiguity about what you're supposed to use. It gives the project a distinct, memorable personality.

If you can keep distinctive project names, but also name menus and title bars such that they link the distinct project to the *role* that project plays, you've got the best of both worlds.

2015-05-28 17:44 GMT-03:00 Sean P. DeNigris <sean@clipperadams.com>:

stepharo wrote

...

My computer is not just Computer your phone is not just Phone :)

Well the name iPhone is actually pretty much just Phone! Also, note that it's not called iConchShell ;)

Android Phone, Windows Phone...

Similarly, Pharo is our brand, and within the image we can make things simple for everyone.

Plus, the menu already shows "System browser" as one of the options, you click it and it opens... Nautilus :P Esteban A. Maringolo

2015-05-25 21:50 GMT-03:00 Sean P. DeNigris <sean@clipperadams.com>:

Ben Coman wrote

...

We should at least change the Nautilus title bar to "Nautilus System Browser" (or just "System Browser" ?)

The other complication is that we have jumped onto the fad now to have cool names for all software projects which offer no guidance as to what the code actually does - a la Ruby, Sinatra, Rails. While this mysteriousness may generate excitement for the project, it seems far less useful once we integrate things in the image. What does/could Nautilus mean to a new user? Taking a cue from Mac - the core apps are called Mail, Contacts, Maps, Notes; not Sandcastle, Cabana, SkippingStone, and Umbrella ;) At least Opal has the word Compiler attached to it!

+1 I think intention revealing names helps even the seasoned user. Regards! Esteban A. Maringolo