I was wondering exactly the same thing!
On 2012-Feb-27, at 18:46 , Lawson English wrote:
The first question is what it would mean in a Smalltalk environment. His tree-drawing example seems to be more of a complete "program" idiom. What would be the counterpart in Smalltalk? If you were looking at a method and made some changes, when and where would you expect to see the changes reflected? If the method were already being run frequently (say as a #step method), then you would see the changes in the World. Recompile time is negligible, of course, and one could think about using sliders to change numeric bits - if you think that improves the experience significantly. But what if the method is not being executed already, how do you say "I've made a change, now run it?" What's the context? And if you think about his tree example, that would likely be a number of methods in Smalltalk, so there's not a natural way to look at the source all at once.
Of course, what does work a bit like that now is EToys. Also, inspectors and explorers can often be used to tweak values of running code, so the dichotomy of compile-and-run vs immediate-feedback is one that has already been largely bridged.
Cheers, Bob
On 2/27/12 6:46 PM, Lawson English wrote:
Lawson
On 2/28/12 9:11 AM, Bob Arning wrote:
The first question is what it would mean in a Smalltalk environment. His tree-drawing example seems to be more of a complete "program" idiom. What would be the counterpart in Smalltalk? If you were looking at a method and made some changes, when and where would you expect to see the changes reflected? If the method were already being run frequently (say as a #step method), then you would see the changes in the World. Recompile time is negligible, of course, and one could think about using sliders to change numeric bits - if you think that improves the experience significantly. But what if the method is not being executed already, how do you say "I've made a change, now run it?" What's the context? And if you think about his tree example, that would likely be a number of methods in Smalltalk, so there's not a natural way to look at the source all at once.
Actually, it should be relatively trivial to provide a custom "folded method" editing pane that is indexed by the methods in the method list of the regular system browser. You can open individual methods or all methods and scroll to them manually, or click on the method name and scroll to it specifically.
More importantly, recompiling during slider changes could also be done reasonably easily, again, with a custom pane that evokes the slider when you click on a number. The total "liveness" of executing changes as they are typed might be more difficult to recreate. Perhaps typing the enter key...
Of course, what does work a bit like that now is EToys. Also, inspectors and explorers can often be used to tweak values of running code, so the dichotomy of compile-and-run vs immediate-feedback is one that has already been largely bridged.
Sure. This would be a somewhat specialized tool anyway. Most applications don't need to record user events for playback, but again, one could modify the standard browser to evoke the behavior if specific classes and their subclasses were being edited.
Lawson
Perhaps an example of something you'd actually like to do in Squeak would help clarify the issue.
On 2/28/12 12:48 PM, Lawson English wrote:
On 2/28/12 9:11 AM, Bob Arning wrote:
The first question is what it would mean in a Smalltalk environment. His tree-drawing example seems to be more of a complete "program" idiom. What would be the counterpart in Smalltalk? If you were looking at a method and made some changes, when and where would you expect to see the changes reflected? If the method were already being run frequently (say as a #step method), then you would see the changes in the World. Recompile time is negligible, of course, and one could think about using sliders to change numeric bits - if you think that improves the experience significantly. But what if the method is not being executed already, how do you say "I've made a change, now run it?" What's the context? And if you think about his tree example, that would likely be a number of methods in Smalltalk, so there's not a natural way to look at the source all at once.
Actually, it should be relatively trivial to provide a custom "folded method" editing pane that is indexed by the methods in the method list of the regular system browser. You can open individual methods or all methods and scroll to them manually, or click on the method name and scroll to it specifically.
More importantly, recompiling during slider changes could also be done reasonably easily, again, with a custom pane that evokes the slider when you click on a number. The total "liveness" of executing changes as they are typed might be more difficult to recreate. Perhaps typing the enter key...
Of course, what does work a bit like that now is EToys. Also, inspectors and explorers can often be used to tweak values of running code, so the dichotomy of compile-and-run vs immediate-feedback is one that has already been largely bridged.
Sure. This would be a somewhat specialized tool anyway. Most applications don't need to record user events for playback, but again, one could modify the standard browser to evoke the behavior if specific classes and their subclasses were being edited.
Lawson
There's a program for Squeak that does that -- it's called Etoys...
His presentation was impressive and refined, but he failed to mention a _most dynamic_ way to develop ideas... By closing one's eyes and simply imagining the possibilities without *any* burden of visible code. IOW, imagine without being constrained by the "how" or whether its even possible. THEN, note it down in words and try to implement it with a dynamic system like what he showed.
To do that, his statement about a "direct connection" to the tools is something I do agree with 100%. A connection to the computing system via the cerebellum rather than the cerebrum, so that the cerebrum is free to focus on ideas rather than user-interface gestures. This is something that Squeak excels in, IMO.
His comment on modality really emphasizes this point, and something I think folks even in this community could stand to listen: when I observe folks in their demo videos using Squeak or Pharo, almost every time I see folks browsing in a modal way. They have a big Package-Pane browser open and they're looking at one package, one class and one method at a time... They have to do about 4-5 clicks to "navigate" to a sent method, and 4-5 clicks to get back. This is way too slow for ideas to emerge.
On Mon, Feb 27, 2012 at 5:46 PM, Lawson English lenglish5@cox.net wrote:
Lawson
On 29 February 2012 17:09, Chris Muller asqueaker@gmail.com wrote:
His presentation was impressive and refined, but he failed to mention a _most dynamic_ way to develop ideas... By closing one's eyes and simply imagining the possibilities without *any* burden of visible code. IOW, imagine without being constrained by the "how" or whether its even possible. THEN, note it down in words and try to implement it with a dynamic system like what he showed.
To do that, his statement about a "direct connection" to the tools is something I do agree with 100%. A connection to the computing system via the cerebellum rather than the cerebrum, so that the cerebrum is free to focus on ideas rather than user-interface gestures. This is something that Squeak excels in, IMO.
His comment on modality really emphasizes this point, and something I think folks even in this community could stand to listen: when I observe folks in their demo videos using Squeak or Pharo, almost every time I see folks browsing in a modal way. They have a big Package-Pane browser open and they're looking at one package, one class and one method at a time... They have to do about 4-5 clicks to "navigate" to a sent method, and 4-5 clicks to get back. This is way too slow for ideas to emerge.
That last sentence is why I think of the Browser as a "pinhole". You can only see one tiny chunk of the puzzle at a time.
frank
On Mon, Feb 27, 2012 at 5:46 PM, Lawson English lenglish5@cox.net wrote:
Lawson
(Cc:ed to Pharo list, but will bounce as I'm not subscribed.)
At Wed, 29 Feb 2012 11:09:56 -0600, Chris Muller wrote:
His presentation was impressive and refined, but he failed to mention a _most dynamic_ way to develop ideas... By closing one's eyes and simply imagining the possibilities without *any* burden of visible code. IOW, imagine without being constrained by the "how" or whether its even possible. THEN, note it down in words and try to implement it with a dynamic system like what he showed.
Yup. Interestingly, that pretty much describes how Bret actually works (we had an opportunity to work together). Whenever there is a little idea pops up, he launches Photoshop and with quick strokes on his tablet, he makes the screen mock up first. He mocks up some animations and effects there by Photoshop's layers and etc. Clearly at this point, he would not think about how to implement. Then, he can implement it also really quickly.
For the original question: "can this be done via modification to the Squeak/Pharo IDE?". Even though some Squeak tools, and Etoys, do possesses the potential to be the basis of such dynamic environment, if the word "this" in the question really means what he actually does, the answer would be different. What he actually does takes absolute attention to any detail and the ability of explaining things clearly, and uber-programming ability combined in one person.
-- Yoshiki
On 2/29/12 4:14 PM, Yoshiki Ohshima wrote: [...]
For the original question: "can this be done via modification to the Squeak/Pharo IDE?". Even though some Squeak tools, and Etoys, do possesses the potential to be the basis of such dynamic environment, if the word "this" in the question really means what he actually does, the answer would be different. What he actually does takes absolute attention to any detail and the ability of explaining things clearly, and uber-programming ability combined in one person.
All of those attributes and abilities can be improved with practice, of course, and they enhance each other: the uber-programmer knows what he wants to do and creates tools to do it, which also happens to enable the uber-presenter to make a more clear presentation.
However, we can't all be uber-presenters AND uber-programmers, so having the right tools available will enable people with lesser talents to accomplish related goals.
L.
On 28 February 2012 01:46, Lawson English lenglish5@cox.net wrote:
Lawson
now after i found time to watch this video, i can comment on it :)
Strangely enough, but i was driven by the very same idea when i first found squeak and joined community. I imagined the scene with animation, like a bullet leaving the gun and flying towards its victim, and i wanted to give an artist/designer/engineer to be able to stop the scene at any moment, interact with objects, like inspect their properties, allow them to change the code and then continue again.
What i seen in those days, that smalltalk is much more enabling environment for doing that, than anything else! And i still keep that idea in mind, every time i doing something, be it VM, FFI or Morphic or OpenGL or bug fixes.. every single step gets me a bit closer to this.. even if i won't be able to work on this thing directly, i trying to push things in direction which would allow others to get to that point.
So, i think Lawson, this is my answer to your question.
now after i found time to watch this video, i can comment on it :)
Strangely enough, but i was driven by the very same idea when i first found squeak and joined community. I imagined the scene with animation, like a bullet leaving the gun and flying towards its victim, and i wanted to give an artist/designer/engineer to be able to stop the scene at any moment, interact with objects, like inspect their properties, allow them to change the code and then continue again.
What i seen in those days, that smalltalk is much more enabling environment for doing that, than anything else! And i still keep that idea in mind, every time i doing something, be it VM, FFI or Morphic or OpenGL or bug fixes.. every single step gets me a bit closer to this.. even if i won't be able to work on this thing directly, i trying to push things in direction which would allow others to get to that point.
You are great enabler. COntinue. Of course we want to do too much because this is exciting. So let us check and focus on the fundamentals.
April will be a crazy month :)
Stef
Lawson
I did not care to start watching a 54 minutes video just to know what you are talking about.
I think it would be adequate to describe the topic of your post with a few sentences along the video link. The link alone, it feels a bit like spam to me.
No offense intended,
Stef
Well, to me, the various demos shown were quite compelling, and I thought, at the least the interface innovations were something that Squeak and Pharo developers might want to adopt. Certainly, for any kind of graphics/games-oriented development, they're the "wave of the future." As to describing them in a few sentences, I didn't think it necessary or even really worth trying to do. A picture is worth a thousand words, and these were highly interactive pictures.
Lawson
On 3/1/12 4:48 AM, Stéphane Rollandin wrote:
Lawson
I did not care to start watching a 54 minutes video just to know what you are talking about.
I think it would be adequate to describe the topic of your post with a few sentences along the video link. The link alone, it feels a bit like spam to me.
No offense intended,
Stef
On 01.03.2012, at 13:00, Lawson English wrote:
Well, to me, the various demos shown were quite compelling, and I thought, at the least the interface innovations were something that Squeak and Pharo developers might want to adopt. Certainly, for any kind of graphics/games-oriented development, they're the "wave of the future." As to describing them in a few sentences, I didn't think it necessary or even really worth trying to do. A picture is worth a thousand words, and these were highly interactive pictures.
Lawson
On 3/1/12 4:48 AM, Stéphane Rollandin wrote:
Lawson
I did not care to start watching a 54 minutes video just to know what you are talking about.
I think it would be adequate to describe the topic of your post with a few sentences along the video link. The link alone, it feels a bit like spam to me.
No offense intended,
Stef
For those with too short an attention span, here is a 5 minute excerpt of the full talk:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PlI-gPu3SPI
But Bret's other demos were equally impressive, and his philosophical remarks in the second part too, so go watch the full thing.
- Bert -
On 1 March 2012 16:47, Bert Freudenberg bert@freudenbergs.de wrote:
On 01.03.2012, at 13:00, Lawson English wrote:
Well, to me, the various demos shown were quite compelling, and I thought, at the least the interface innovations were something that Squeak and Pharo developers might want to adopt. Certainly, for any kind of graphics/games-oriented development, they're the "wave of the future." As to describing them in a few sentences, I didn't think it necessary or even really worth trying to do. A picture is worth a thousand words, and these were highly interactive pictures.
Lawson
On 3/1/12 4:48 AM, Stéphane Rollandin wrote:
Lawson
I did not care to start watching a 54 minutes video just to know what you are talking about.
I think it would be adequate to describe the topic of your post with a few sentences along the video link. The link alone, it feels a bit like spam to me.
No offense intended,
Stef
For those with too short an attention span, here is a 5 minute excerpt of the full talk:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PlI-gPu3SPI
But Bret's other demos were equally impressive, and his philosophical remarks in the second part too, so go watch the full thing.
yeap.. except that i find him too idealistic and putting to high demands on an audience, a bit of cynicism wouldn't hurt. at some moments of his talk, i can almost hear "hey, stop moralizing, show us how you doing that" :)
- Bert -
On 01.03.2012, at 16:58, Igor Stasenko wrote:
On 1 March 2012 16:47, Bert Freudenberg bert@freudenbergs.de wrote:
On 01.03.2012, at 13:00, Lawson English wrote:
Well, to me, the various demos shown were quite compelling, and I thought, at the least the interface innovations were something that Squeak and Pharo developers might want to adopt. Certainly, for any kind of graphics/games-oriented development, they're the "wave of the future." As to describing them in a few sentences, I didn't think it necessary or even really worth trying to do. A picture is worth a thousand words, and these were highly interactive pictures.
Lawson
On 3/1/12 4:48 AM, Stéphane Rollandin wrote:
Lawson
I did not care to start watching a 54 minutes video just to know what you are talking about.
I think it would be adequate to describe the topic of your post with a few sentences along the video link. The link alone, it feels a bit like spam to me.
No offense intended,
Stef
For those with too short an attention span, here is a 5 minute excerpt of the full talk:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PlI-gPu3SPIBut Bret's other demos were equally impressive, and his philosophical remarks in the second part too, so go watch the full thing.
yeap.. except that i find him too idealistic and putting to high demands on an audience, a bit of cynicism wouldn't hurt. at some moments of his talk, i can almost hear "hey, stop moralizing, show us how you doing that" :)
You have to keep in mind his original audience. His talk was not aimed at us.
- Bert -
As to describing them in a few sentences, I didn't think it necessary or even really worth trying to do. A picture is worth a thousand words, and these were highly interactive pictures.
Ok, well, we are all different... I don't like having to submit my time to a video, I much prefer reading.
Best,
Stef
squeak-dev@lists.squeakfoundation.org
-
Bert Freudenberg -
Bob Arning -
Chris Muller -
Dave Mason -
Frank Shearar -
Igor Stasenko -
Lawson English -
Stéphane Ducasse -
Stéphane Rollandin -
Yoshiki Ohshima