World: r3wp
[!REBOL3-OLD1]
older newer | first last |
Chris 13-Oct-2007 [5079x5] | Petr, I can't say I disagree with much Henrik put on his blog -- I have been advocating something similar for some time. It sounds consistent with the intent behind CSS, thus I'm curious exactly what aspect of CSS Gabriele and perhaps Henrik take issue with. imo, the concept of a visual language that is hierarchial and context-specific is sound. The actual implementation of CSS is kindof ugly.. |
If we are to, as you say 'screw', separating visual from function, then why bother when we still have VID 2? | |
Look at it another way -- if you are building a web application, you hire a designer to work on the interface. The designer may adjust some of your HTML templates, but most all the work can be done with a style sheet. That's it. They don't need to go tinkering in your application code, they just need to know the elements of the interface and the range of states of those elements. They code the CSS, bundle the images, then they're done and you can slot it into your interface without modification. | |
Where I have designed VID interfaces, I (or someone else) have had to implement my designs in lower level code, and still there are portions beyond my control. And a change in the visual may change the functionality of the application.. | |
Though don't misunderstand me -- I am not suggesting VID 3 should be an HTML/CSS/JS layout engine. All I'm saying is learn from the good, proven concepts that exist in their design. | |
Gabriele 13-Oct-2007 [5084] | Maarten: I know what CSS is about. I don't want to use it for applications. |
Terry 13-Oct-2007 [5085] | Yeah, why use a standard if you don't have to. |
Gabriele 13-Oct-2007 [5086] | in VID3 function is completely separate from visual already. many people are strongly opposing that. I will fight for it. |
Graham 13-Oct-2007 [5087] | It's hard to discuss this wihout any experience of what you have done so far. |
Chris 13-Oct-2007 [5088] | I'll say... |
Pekr 13-Oct-2007 [5089x2] | Chris - I know, I remember your position. Was it REBOL2 or REBOL1 world we were discussing that? VID 1.3 time. I too, asked Henrik/Gabriele about CSS. Because it would be cool, if we would be close to standards. Not because of standards themselves, but because of easy of deployment. But, as far as I understand the situation - Gabriele understands CSS, and so far, VID3 seems more flexible. If it would be upon to him, he would even more separate (completly) app logic and user interface. |
As Graham says, it is difficult to judge, if you have no access to what is done. But - it is difficult to judge even if I have the access, as the thingy is not complete yet. I hope Gabriele is soon back on VID3. | |
Chris 13-Oct-2007 [5091] | Ok, I think we understand each other. |
Pekr 13-Oct-2007 [5092] | My idea is kind of VID3 translator/compiler - maybe with i limited functionality? I don't know, kind of how you decide if you output make-doc to pdf, html ... |
Robert 13-Oct-2007 [5093x5] | Steeve, do you mean http://www.plextk.org? |
GUI & functions: The only way I think we really can let GUI people work on it wihtout disturbing the code is to use a event model. So a GUI widget just sends an event to some rebol internal event-handler & dispatcher and this calls the app code. | |
So a GUI could look like this: ... save: button "Save" [signal-gui 'save-contact-record] ... | |
And to make it even more "self-contained" we could use: ... save-contact: button "Save" ... And the GUI system would send a message of the form [save-contact left-click] or [save-contact right-click] etc. | |
So the GUI designers just need to now how to name the GUI elements the app code needs to reference. | |
Frank 13-Oct-2007 [5098] | Cool-Plex is now CA Plex => http://www.ca.com/us/products/product.aspx?id=258 |
Henrik 13-Oct-2007 [5099] | Chris: "From a visual pov, it's very easy to put together an interface in HTML -- it's the behaviour part that bites." From a visual pov, it's very easy to put together a document in HTML. For application interfaces, it's way too underdimensioned for the needs we have. I have been working for years with HTML+CSS+Ajax interfaces. hope with VID3, I won't have to do that ever again. It's almost a sad parody of real user interface construction. I'm amazed that people are already forgetting how real user interfaces work. |
Chris 13-Oct-2007 [5100] | Visually, it's very easy putting together an application inteface in HTML too. Perhaps we have a different model of what an application is? |
Henrik 13-Oct-2007 [5101] | I think we do. |
btiffin 13-Oct-2007 [5102x2] | I hope I'm not infringing on a copyright but this quote from the commentary of the Halloween I document http://catb.org/~esr/halloween/halloween1.htmlexplains that phenomenon quite nicely. <q> The difference here is, in every release cycle Microsoft always listens to its most ignorant customers. This is the key to dumbing down each release cycle of software for further assaulting the non-PC population. Linux and OS/2 developers, OTOH, tend to listen to their smartest customers. This necessarily limits the initial appeal of the operating system, while enhancing its long-term benefits. Perhaps only a monopolist like Microsoft could get away with selling worse products each generation -- products focused so narrowly on the least-technical member of the consumer base that they necessarily sacrifice technical excellence. Linux and OS/2 tend to appeal to the customer who knows greatness when he or she sees it.The good that Microsoft does in bringing computers to the non-users is outdone by the curse they bring upon the experienced users, because their monopoly position tends to force everyone toward the lowest-common-denominator, not just the new users. </q> |
Umm, I didn't mean to shut down the conversation with the MS bashing. Wasn't really the point. The point is that the trend in Desktop is to dumb things down, and that seems to have slipped into the web application domain as well. Not our trend I hope. The hard part being the balance between usability and developer bliss and sense of self-respect. :) | |
Kaj 13-Oct-2007 [5104x4] | Gabriele, you have my support on the UI separation. I agree it's important and think it's good news you got it through. Your original design document on it was brilliant |
It has always been a mystery to me how REBOL is the best language for abstraction, yet almost all its applications are a mishmash of layers that should have been separated out | |
It must be an effect of the throw-away coding model and the focus on individual developers. It doesn't scale to responsibility delegation in the way Chris says | |
Like R3 is introducing a programming-in-the-large model, VID3 needs a designing-in-the-large model | |
btiffin 13-Oct-2007 [5108] | I'll +1 on Kaj's remarks. I'd like to see Gabriele be allowed to apply some genius to VID3 then drag the rest (most) of us up to where we should be. Chris and Henrik and Robert and Maarten et al will then produce all the cool code we've come to expect, but from a higher view point and perhaps from a slightly different slant than we are used to. imho. And I do hope that VID3 work will be as shareable as the best of the library functions, umm, we don't really have yet. :) |
btiffin 14-Oct-2007 [5109] | There is potential for R3 to have access to last console expression results. Any suggested names? >> 2 + 3 == 5 >> 3 * result ; where result is some new REBOL function. == 15 I'm a forther so I suggested . (dot), but Carl hinted he has been waiting for the perfect use of that symbol. Is this it? Looking for a good name for last-console-result. Of course my example is trvial, it'd be more useful for longer expression and save on a temp: while working the console. For me, I'd prefer something short, easy to type (avoiding shift if possible) and having some meaning. That may exclude . as dot is really forther common speak and would be meaningless to many. I want to push for this feature as I'm continually up arrowing and adding temp: to test expressions. |
Maarten 14-Oct-2007 [5110] | $_ |
btiffin 14-Oct-2007 [5111] | I'd go for that one too, but it's an Invalid money! It would require a special hook in the scanner. |
Brock 14-Oct-2007 [5112x2] | lcr ... for last-console-result ?? If something like . would be acceptable then I'm sure an acronymn could be used. |
;-) | |
Maarten 15-Oct-2007 [5114] | Well, _$ then? Sendsa nice signal to newbies |
Henrik 15-Oct-2007 [5115] | that is also an invalid money! |
ICarii 15-Oct-2007 [5116x2] | _& |
as in whatever canme before & what follows | |
Graham 15-Oct-2007 [5118] | the use of . means we could use .. for second last, and ... for third last ad infinitum :) |
Henrik 15-Oct-2007 [5119] | well, that would make for a lot of hard to read code :-) |
ICarii 15-Oct-2007 [5120] | heh: . + .. + ... * .. + ... reminds me of a certain very annoying language :) |
Henrik 15-Oct-2007 [5121x2] | I think actually there should be a limit to how far you can go back, otherwise one might encourage people to make hard to read code. |
skip stack -37 ; hard to debug | |
Maarten 15-Oct-2007 [5123x2] | Hmmm, I'd love a 'get-stack and 'restore-stack. Who needs continuations.... |
(and serializable) | |
btiffin 15-Oct-2007 [5125] | I'm not sure this will be last-expression-result. I think it will be restricted to last-console-result. afaik. But a short-cut for last-expression-result could make for more codie looking code. :) |
Henrik 15-Oct-2007 [5126x3] | I don't think it would make a difference if it were in console or in code. I think that being able to go one result back in code would be highly useful, but it should be done in a readable way. |
a word like 'previous could do that | |
I think to browse console results interactively, use something like the stack of HP calculators. | |
older newer | first last |