Squeak-dev February 2000

squeak-dev@lists.squeakfoundation.org

163 participants
655 discussions

RE: Generating source code from Morphs [was: RE: More Widgets for Squeak....]
by agree＠carltonfields.com 01 Feb '00

01 Feb '00

As to overall architecture, it is posible that Marcel's -- yes, I'll say it :-) -- filter streams, may be useful to that end. > -----Original Message----- > From: MIME :karl.ramberg@chello.se > Sent: Tuesday, February 01, 2000 3:49 PM > To: squeak(a)cs.uiuc.edu > Subject: Re: Generating source code from Morphs [was: RE: More Widgets > for Squeak....] > > > > > "Norton, Chris" wrote: > > > Hi Lex & Company. > > > > On February 01, 2000, Lex Spoon [lex(a)cc.gatech.edu] wrote: > > > > ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ > > "Sort of. Morphic is nice in that you can drag things > around and embed them > > in each other. Using this facility plus inspectors, you > can create an > > arbitrary window this way. It pretty much has the feel of > a GUI builder, > > except there is no way to generate code to recreate the thing." > > ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ > > > > You know, I have often wished that this mechanism were more > robust, as it is > > much easier to drag-n-drop widgets together than it is to > wire them up the > > old fashioned way. Perhaps the top level morph should have > a standard > > selector that can generate a method definition that can > later be used to > > rebuild the whole thing programmatically. Thus you could > hook morphs > > together, embed them into a SystemWindow or playfield and > then ask the > > SystemWindow to generate code that can reproduce the whole > mess... I > > suppose the first thing to do is to implement > Morph>>asSourceCode. Or > > something like it. > > > > Cheers! > > > > ---==> Chris > > It would be nice if morphic worked both with drag and drop > and coding, all > turning up in the code and window. > Anybody working on this? > > Karl > > > >

1 0

Re: More Widgets for Squeak....
by R. A. Harmon 01 Feb '00

01 Feb '00

At 05:35 PM 1/31/00 -0500, Dino <deanmao(a)cc.gatech.edu> wrote: >I think MVC is pretty much dead. Everyone uses morphic [snip] I use MVC exclusively, and Squeak would be reduced in suitability for my use if it were dropped. >Piero Campanelli wrote: >> >> Hi. >> >> Sorry if I haven't read previous list messages.... >> I am building user interfaces with Squeak, but i think (at the moment) >> there are few widgets (for MVC). In my standard image there is only Button, >> List, TextBox and few others. Is there any project to enhance the number of >> widgets ????????? >> Is there any change set ??? >> >> Thank you >> Piero > > > -- Richard A. Harmon "The only good zombie is a dead zombie" harmonra(a)webname.com E. G. McCarthy Spencer, Iowa

2 1

RE: Generating source code from Morphs [was: RE: More Widgets for Squ eak....]
by agree＠carltonfields.com 01 Feb '00

01 Feb '00

I was just reading through the Mac OS X documentation for OpenStep and thinking the very same thing. If morphs knew how to write code to duplicate themselves, perhaps with some parameters (like a model), or to generate code that would openInWorld, perhaps building Support Morphs to facilitate the GUI for project building, but which are "transparent" to the codeWriters (or a repository for special purpose code that gets built into the codeWriters), that might be really neat. Indeed, it might also might be an order of magnitude "deeper" than a GUI projectbuilder -- you could just refactor the code and, glory be, there's your App. > -----Original Message----- > From: MIME :chrisn@Kronos.com > Sent: Tuesday, February 01, 2000 1:27 PM > To: squeak(a)cs.uiuc.edu > Subject: Generating source code from Morphs [was: RE: More Widgets for > Squ eak....] > > > Hi Lex & Company. > > On February 01, 2000, Lex Spoon [lex(a)cc.gatech.edu] wrote: > > ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ > "Sort of. Morphic is nice in that you can drag things around > and embed them > in each other. Using this facility plus inspectors, you can create an > arbitrary window this way. It pretty much has the feel of a > GUI builder, > except there is no way to generate code to recreate the thing." > ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ > > You know, I have often wished that this mechanism were more > robust, as it is > much easier to drag-n-drop widgets together than it is to > wire them up the > old fashioned way. Perhaps the top level morph should have a standard > selector that can generate a method definition that can later > be used to > rebuild the whole thing programmatically. Thus you could hook morphs > together, embed them into a SystemWindow or playfield and then ask the > SystemWindow to generate code that can reproduce the whole mess... I > suppose the first thing to do is to implement Morph>>asSourceCode. Or > something like it. > > Cheers! > > ---==> Chris > > > >

1 0

Re: Type Safety (was Re: fun and empowerment)
by demiourgos＠smalltalk.org 01 Feb '00

01 Feb '00

On Tue, 01 February 2000, "Lex Spoon" wrote: > > > "Richard A. O'Keefe" <ok(a)hermes.otago.ac.nz> wrote: [snip] > > Lex > > > > PS -- any language where Carpel Tunnel Syndrome is a real problem, > should be taken out back and summarily executed. Or maybe it's > programmers who don't make abstractions for the things they do all the > time. Either way, IMNSHO, programming should *not* be dominated by > keyboard typing speed. And, when it is, such as in COBOL, programmers get "clever" to keep the typing down, eg, as in SpitBol. ______________________________________________________ Jan Theodore Galkowski www.smalltalk.org/ http://www.scguild.com/usr/1707I.html demiourgos(a)smalltalk.org www.marssociety.org/ ********************************************** PGP Key Fingerprint: 2757 F86D AA51 677D 38D7 964B 9A8D 7852 A494 3790 ********************************************** Get my Public Key from my home page at: http://home.stny.rr.com/algebraist/ ********************************************** ______________________________________________ Get free e-mail at http://www.britannica.com

1 0

Re: 2.8a
by Bruce ONeel 01 Feb '00

01 Feb '00

"Michael Chean" <Michael_Chean(a)email.msn.com> wrote: > Hi: Is this release public? I went to the download and it indicates that > 2.7 is the current > release. Hi, I try to keep an updated alpha image on the ftp site. You can find it at: <ftp://st.cs.uiuc.edu//Smalltalk/Squeak/2.7/files/Squeak2.8a-beo.tar.gz> Are you on a mac? If so you'll need to change the creator type. cheers bruce

5 4

Process'ing
by John Clonts 01 Feb '00

01 Feb '00

I'm expecting the following code to print on the Transcript until i change the inspected Valueholder to hold false. But nothing at all shows on the transcript. | f | f := ValueHolder new contents: true. f inspect. [ [ f contents ] whileTrue: [ Transcript show: 'working' ;cr ] ] forkAt: Processor userBackgroundPriority. Can someone explain, or give a snippet that "works"? ( The equivalent does in VW) This doesn't have something to do with the discussion about BlockContexts' temporaries "real vs squeak" I hope? Cheers, John

2 1

RE: Perl open source contest
by agree＠carltonfields.com 01 Feb '00

01 Feb '00

> Lex> FWIW, Python is basically Smalltalk without the GUI. > > No. Python is a hybrid OO language. There are still "primitives" and > "objects". Unless something happened in a recent Python that lets you > add methods to "3". Worse (and, my talmudic training leads me to say, in some ways better), Python has some "supertypes," particularly strings, dictionaries and tuples, which are non-objects. All, of course, can be wrapped, but in practice, they are not. > Python also has a built-in syntax that will *not* fit on the back of a > business card, unlike Smalltalk. A full expression syntax with many > levels of precedence. Again, better and worse. Python's message parameter scheme, permitting you to specify optional parameters with defaults and messages with arbitrary numbers of parameters, has some features often more convenient than the "build-a-call" hacks we do in Smalltalk. > This puts Python in the C++, Perl, and Java camp. Hybrid languages. > Not Smalltalk. And the difference is not just the GUI. Certainly true, but in some sense false. The lack of a meaningful, integrated GUI and IDE, however, is one of those things that tremendously distinguishes Squeak from Python. On the other hand . . . :-)

1 0

Re: Perl open source contest
by merlyn＠stonehenge.com 01 Feb '00

01 Feb '00

>>>>> "agree" == agree <agree(a)carltonfields.com> writes: agree> Certainly true, but in some sense false. The lack of a agree> meaningful, integrated GUI and IDE, however, is one of those agree> things that tremendously distinguishes Squeak from Python. I certainly wasn't saying "worse or better". I strive to learn more Smalltalk... I don't have the same passion for Python, if that means anything. All I was saying is the word "basically" was insufficient, and might lead people to believe that Python is merely headless Smalltalk, and that's pretty far from the truth. -- Randal L. Schwartz - Stonehenge Consulting Services, Inc. - +1 503 777 0095 <merlyn(a)stonehenge.com> <URL:http://www.stonehenge.com/merlyn/> Perl/Unix/security consulting, Technical writing, Comedy, etc. etc. See PerlTraining.Stonehenge.com for onsite and open-enrollment Perl training!

1 0

Re: Perl open source contest
by merlyn＠stonehenge.com 01 Feb '00

01 Feb '00

>>>>> "Lex" == Lex Spoon <lex(a)cc.gatech.edu> writes: Lex> FWIW, Python is basically Smalltalk without the GUI. No. Python is a hybrid OO language. There are still "primitives" and "objects". Unless something happened in a recent Python that lets you add methods to "3". Python also has a built-in syntax that will *not* fit on the back of a business card, unlike Smalltalk. A full expression syntax with many levels of precedence. This puts Python in the C++, Perl, and Java camp. Hybrid languages. Not Smalltalk. And the difference is not just the GUI. -- Randal L. Schwartz - Stonehenge Consulting Services, Inc. - +1 503 777 0095 <merlyn(a)stonehenge.com> <URL:http://www.stonehenge.com/merlyn/> Perl/Unix/security consulting, Technical writing, Comedy, etc. etc. See PerlTraining.Stonehenge.com for onsite and open-enrollment Perl training!

1 0

Re: Irregularly shaped main window
by Lex Spoon 01 Feb '00

01 Feb '00

It's doable on Unix as well. So the big three are covered. We just need a primitive to specify where the shape bitmap is. Lex Duane Maxwell <dmaxwell(a)entrypoint.com> wrote: > On a Mac, at least, you'd need to create a custom window definition > function, or WDEF, which uses regions to define its shape and widget areas, > then rebuild the VM to use it instead of the standard one. You should be > able to find the source of a simple WDEF floating around the Mac FTP sites, > and it's not too hard from there. I seriously doubt there's any way to do > it directly from the Squeak world. > > >Hello everyone, > > > >Can anyone tell me how I would go about creating an irregularly shaped main > >Squeak window using a mask or a region definition? Would this require a VM > >change or can it be done in Smalltalk code? I am trying to duplicate the > >look and feel of an Internet assistant which we are developing. I think I > >can accomplish just about everything else we are doing in Smalltalk code. > > > >This is just part of my effort to get people interested in Squeak for doing > >multi-platform development. > > > >Thanks in advance for any suggestions. > > > >Jerome > > > =================================================== > Duane Maxwell dmaxwell (at) entrypoint.com > CTO http://www.entrypoint.com > EntryPoint, Inc. (858)348-3040 FAX(858)348-3100 > > Information contained herein is my personal opinion > and not necessarily that of EntryPoint. > ===================================================

1 0

Jump to page: