World: r3wp

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.

Maarten: I know what CSS is about. I don't want to use it for applications.

Yeah, why use a standard if you don't have to.

in VID3 function is completely separate from visual already. many 
people are strongly opposing that. I will fight for it.

It's hard to discuss this wihout any experience of what you have 
done so far.

I'll say...

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.

Ok, I think we understand each other.

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 ...

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.

Cool-Plex is now CA Plex =>
http://www.ca.com/us/products/product.aspx?id=258

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.

Visually, it's very easy putting together an application inteface 
in HTML too.  Perhaps we have a different model of what an application 
is?

I think we do.

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.  :)

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

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. 
 :)

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.

$_

I'd go for that one too, but it's an Invalid money!  It would require 
a special hook in the scanner.

lcr ... for last-console-result ??  If something like . would be 
acceptable then I'm sure an acronymn could be used.

;-)

Well, _$ then? Sendsa nice signal to newbies

that is also an invalid money!

_&

as in whatever canme before & what follows

the use of . means we could use .. for second last, and ... for third 
last ad infinitum :)

well, that would make for a lot of hard to read code :-)

heh:
 . + .. + ... * .. + ...
reminds me of a certain very annoying language :)

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

Hmmm,  I'd love a 'get-stack and 'restore-stack. Who needs continuations....

(and serializable)

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.  :)

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.

or: system/console/last (or whatever the appropriate R3 equivelent 
is)