OSx news and external world reaction ...
[1/12] from: petr:krenzelok:trz:cz at: 5-Feb-2003 9:22
Hi,
I took care to inform Eugenia from OSNews and also MacWorldCentral about
OSX news. They both published. OSNews carried some discussion too and
one reply dragged my attention:
What, does RT have money to burn or something ?!?
Anyone that cares to do web scripting can use Perl or Python (or cURL
for simple web fetching).
REBOL's best bet would be to provide a cross-platform scripting language
/that can be used to build professional-looking apps/, not drablets.
Show me a REBOL product that can stand next to wxWindows/Eclipse/Qt and
I might be interested. It would take that much for me to consider a
closed, proprietary source vendor.
If REBOL has gone this far with that GUI kit, it's clear to me that
those folks just don't get it. That minimalist, insular mindset might
play well in the Honeycomb Hideout, but it doesn't cut it for app
development.
While I regard first part of message (web scripting) being a real crap
(author does not mention PHP for e.g.), I would like to ask - is here
anyone who tried abovementhioned "wxWindows/Eclipse/Qt"? And do you
think View can't be used to develop the same level UI apps?
We know what is VID about, we know much can be improved and will be
improved. Things that bother me more thoug, are - printing, unicode,
better fonts (aliasing) ... simply the kernel changes - are we behind
here in comparison to above mentioned environments?
Thanks,
-pekr-
[2/12] from: al:bri:xtra at: 5-Feb-2003 22:39
pekr wrote:
> I would like to ask - is here anyone who tried abovementhioned
wxWindows/Eclipse/Qt
? And do you think View can't be used to develop the
same level UI apps?
I've got wxWindows on my computer. I'm sort-of confident that I could
develop a far better looking and working, Windows compatible GUI app with
wxWindows than I could with Rebol/View. The simple reason is the Rebol/View
GUI isn't windows compatible.
It's also the reason why I'm developing software in Rebol, but as a CGI.
That way I can write and use great Rebol code, but still have a Windows and
Browser compatible GUI (using a Internet Browser). Little things like paste
with Shift+Insert, better scrolling, printing (very important!), larger and
changeable font size, editing text that works properly, menus, keyboard
shortcuts, right click pop-up property menus, etc. It's frustrating not
having these features in Rebol/View.
Andrew Martin
ICQ: 26227169 http://valley.150m.com/
[3/12] from: petr:krenzelok:trz:cz at: 5-Feb-2003 11:14
Andrew Martin wrote:
>pekr wrote:
>>I would like to ask - is here anyone who tried abovementhioned
<<quoted lines omitted: 13>>
>shortcuts, right click pop-up property menus, etc. It's frustrating not
>having these features in Rebol/View.
Thanks a lot for your reaction ... interesting. I too balanced (and
still I am) between the "browser way" and native rebol way. So far I did
not do any large apps, but all my utils use VID. I really can't
understand, what is so important on native OS look (not talking feel behavior - that
IS neeeded). I also ask the same question to my users -
from their reactions I can tell, that they don't find View UI
distracting. In fact, they like it - a slight difference in all that SAP
work :-)
As for fonts, printing, unicode, slightly improving keyboard handler
(key-up event) etc., - that is exactly the area RT should work upon. We
can't improve rebol kernels, only they can. Carl should be language
architect once again, although I can understand it is pleasure for him
to write some scripts too :-)
As for widgets you mention, I think it can be done using VID, from
proper text editing, resizing, tab system, menus (even context ones) etc
etc.
Anyway, thanks for your opinion,
-pekr-
[4/12] from: carl:cybercraft at: 6-Feb-2003 0:37
On 05-Feb-03, Andrew Martin wrote:
> pekr wrote:
>> I would like to ask - is here anyone who tried abovementhioned
<<quoted lines omitted: 12>>
> pop-up property menus, etc. It's frustrating not having these
> features in Rebol/View.
I recently read this...
http://www.asktog.com/basics/firstPrinciples.html
and was struck by the following and how it relates to VID...
Inconsistency: It is just important to be visually inconsistent when
things must act differently as it is to be visually consistent when
things act the same.
Given it's hard to duplicate exactly the native GUI of the OS that
View's running on, (and maybe impossible with some OSs), it makes
sense not to try and instead make it plain your program's different,
while attempting to make it as easy and intuitive as possible to use.
The problem (as I see it) with trying to give REBOL access to the
native OSs' GUIs is that it could only use the
lowest-common-denominator features from the different platforms if
scripts are to stay cross-platform. That said, I'm sure such a
minimilist set of GUI features would be welcome, even though there'd
be a lot of moans about it not offering this, that and the other
feature from each specific OS.
(I however want my REBOL/View apps to be the same across platforms,
not behave differently from platform to platform...)
--
Carl Read
[5/12] from: andreas::bolka::gmx::net at: 5-Feb-2003 12:59
Wednesday, February 5, 2003, 8:22:04 AM, Petr wrote:
> is here anyone who tried abovementhioned "wxWindows/Eclipse/Qt"? And
> do you think View can't be used to develop the same level UI apps?
have a quick glance over the following info, and make up your own
mind.
wxWindows - 10+ year old, mature, open-source cross-plattform native
UI framework. originally a c++ framework it is accessible from all
major and some minor languages: python, perl, javascript, eiffel, lua,
etc. a .net port is in progress
- http://www.wxwindows.org/
Eclipse - i guess the author referred to the open-source
cross plattform native widget set, commonly known as SWT, that was
brought to java-land by ibm as part of the eclipse project.
- http://dev.eclipse.org/viewcvs/index.cgi/%7Echeckout%7E/platform-swt-home/main.html
Qt - a C++ app-dev toolkit. provides platform independent APIs for
GUI, db, net, files, etc. supports X11 (unix), win32 and Mac OS X.
free for non-commercial use under X11.
- http://www.trolltech.com/products/qt/
---
Some sample references:
wxWindows is widely regarded as a non-fancy and very solid
cross-plattform framework - "industry grade." It is used in a wide
variety of projects, for example
VTP (Virtual Terrain Project). The goal of VTP is to foster the
creation of tools for easily constructing any part of the real world
in interactive, 3D digital form. VTP writes and supports a set of
software tools (VTP Toolbox) and an interactive runtime environment
(VTP Enviro).
- http://vterrain.org/
VULCAN software is the leading 3D modelling and mine planning
software for the mining industry. VULCAN is applicable to all
situations involving spatial modelling and analysis, in fields ranging
from mining to environmental management, and urban planning to
defence
- http://www.vulcan3d.com/guiexample.html
Mitch Kapor's/The Open Source Application Foundation's upcoming
personal information manager is going to use wxWindows as well.
Basically, wxWindows is a proven solution and can be used for almost
any GUI application you can think of.
SWT, albeit quite young, is slowly gaining ground in Java-land finally
delivering the "write once run anywhere" premise for truly native
look/feel GUI applications. _The_ parade-project for SWT is obviously
Eclipse (and in fact, both are often mistaken for each other).
Eclipse is a full featured IDE for Java including all those things you
may have ever wanted in an IDE - UML modeling, version control,
tooltips everywhere, intelligent code (i.e. the tool knows the
language semantically and assists you in your craft) leading to
refactoring assistance and tons of other stuff. Eclipse provides an
open plug-in framework, allowing developers to do almost everything
with it.
SWT will most likely help Java to gain a bit of desktop-land. Wether
this will be a significant gain is still open - SWT still has to stand
the test of time and time will show wether it will be used for
anything else except Eclipse.
Qt is the framework underlying a non-trivial part of linux desktop
applications. in fact, KDE - being one of the two, large user-base
desktop environments for linux - is built using Qt. i suppose this
alone is enough to call a framework "proven." but have a quick look at
some reference customers of Qt.
- http://www.trolltech.com/products/customers.html?cr=1
now decide for yourself, wether /view can and/or should be used to
develop these things :)
--
Best regards,
Andreas mailto:[andreas--bolka--gmx--net]
[6/12] from: joel:neely:fedex at: 5-Feb-2003 6:57
Hi, Carl,
Robin Williams (the female typographer, not the male comic) expressed
it very succinctly in her writings:
Don't be a wimp!
which is shorthand for her design rule that if you're going to design
two things to be different, then make sure that they are so different
that it will be obvious that you intended to do so.
Of course, being a programmer by trade and a theorist by disposition,
my shorthand is the MetaConsistencyRule
consistent presentation = consistent behavior
The middle connector denotes logical equivalence, so this can be read
as an implication in either direction, and negation distributes. ;-)
Seriously, what we're talking about IMHO is analogous to visual
contrast in the image-processing arena. Blurred, misty, soft-focus
meanings are fun (and essential) in art (painting, photography,
poetry, etc.) but are deadly in those areas where unambiguous clarity
is necessary (as in programming, mathematics, treaties, contracts,
etc.) Therefore, we need to "turn up the contrast filter" and make
sure that the differences are highly visible.
-jn-
Carl Read wrote:
[7/12] from: bruno:bam:wanadoo at: 5-Feb-2003 14:47
Hi all,
May I point at something quite obvious... according to the statement
Show me a REBOL product that can stand next to wxWindows/Eclipse/Qt and I
might be interested.
,
we would have been locked in the binary coding (or even hexadecimal) for the
rest of Times. Why looking at other programming languages, if any program /
algorithm is supposed to be transformed into binaries ?...
This kind of "programming obscurantism" is very sad, indeed... I think it
comes from the "religious fanatic" feelings a hacker/coder might feel for
his favorite programming language. There are JAVAists, PERLists,
PYTHONists... and REBOLists, of course ;o)
Were the first releases of Perl, Java, Python, etc. fully-functional, with a
full-GUI developement system, and integrated libraries parsing XML,
and-just-think-the-program-it-is-coded-instantly ?
No.
REBOL already does things a classical programming language doesn't. Just
have a quick look at the "one-liners" on rebol.com... It's still young. Give
us some time...
--Bruno Bord aka No'
-----Message d'origine-----
De : [rebol-bounce--rebol--com] [mailto:[rebol-bounce--rebol--com]]De la part de
Petr Krenzelok
Envoye : mercredi 5 fevrier 2003 09:22
A : [rebol-list--rebol--com]
Objet : [REBOL] OSx news and external world reaction ...
Hi,
I took care to inform Eugenia from OSNews and also MacWorldCentral about
OSX news. They both published. OSNews carried some discussion too and
one reply dragged my attention:
What, does RT have money to burn or something ?!?
Anyone that cares to do web scripting can use Perl or Python (or cURL
for simple web fetching).
REBOL's best bet would be to provide a cross-platform scripting language
/that can be used to build professional-looking apps/, not drablets.
Show me a REBOL product that can stand next to wxWindows/Eclipse/Qt and
I might be interested. It would take that much for me to consider a
closed, proprietary source vendor.
If REBOL has gone this far with that GUI kit, it's clear to me that
those folks just don't get it. That minimalist, insular mindset might
play well in the Honeycomb Hideout, but it doesn't cut it for app
development.
While I regard first part of message (web scripting) being a real crap
(author does not mention PHP for e.g.), I would like to ask - is here
anyone who tried abovementhioned "wxWindows/Eclipse/Qt"? And do you
think View can't be used to develop the same level UI apps?
We know what is VID about, we know much can be improved and will be
improved. Things that bother me more thoug, are - printing, unicode,
better fonts (aliasing) ... simply the kernel changes - are we behind
here in comparison to above mentioned environments?
Thanks,
-pekr-
[8/12] from: maarten:koopmans:surfnet:nl at: 5-Feb-2003 15:29
Andreas Bolka wrote:
> Wednesday, February 5, 2003, 8:22:04 AM, Petr wrote:
>
> have a quick glance over the following info, and make up your own
> mind.
>
Different tools for different problems ;-)
QT and wxWindows are GUI libraries. I have played with the idea of
making a QT dialect, but the c interface isn't good enough (yet).
I'd say Rebol could be a potential user of those libraries, much more
than a competitor.
BTW: I am building a commercial webshop (for my wife) these days using a
greatly enhanced rebol server pages. Rebol rocks... more to come.
--Maarten
[9/12] from: andreas:bolka:gmx at: 5-Feb-2003 17:58
Wednesday, February 5, 2003, 2:29:33 PM, Maarten wrote:
> Andreas Bolka wrote:
>>
>> have a quick glance over the following info, and make up your own
>> mind.
> Different tools for different problems ;-)
exactly :)
--
Best regards,
Andreas mailto:[andreas--bolka--gmx--net]
[10/12] from: greggirwin:mindspring at: 5-Feb-2003 12:10
Hi Petr,
PK> While I regard first part of message (web scripting) being a real crap
PK> (author does not mention PHP for e.g.), I would like to ask - is here
PK> anyone who tried abovementhioned "wxWindows/Eclipse/Qt"? And do you
PK> think View can't be used to develop the same level UI apps?
The biggest problem VID will have in a direct UI comparison, IMHO, is
keyboard support. We can make a REBOL app look and act like anything
we want, it's just a matter of time and effort. You also have to
consider lots of other things though.
Are you starting from square one, or are you already familiar with a
language you are looking to use? I.e. are you comparing a REBOL expert
against a Java/C++ guru or are you talking about newbies and
non-programmers who have to download, install, and ramp up on
everything.
What is the exact feature set? Every tool has things it is good at,
things it can be made to do, and things which it just wasn't meant to
do - even if you can force it to work with lots of effort. E.g.
tooltips aren't native to VID, but we could add them, I don't know if
wxWindows/Qt/Eclipse provide a compositing engine or not, or what it
would take to add it.
Well, I guess that's about .01% of things to consider. :) As I've said
before, coming from a history of writing Windows apps in VB, there are
things I could do in VB that I can't do easily in REBOL yet and there are
things I can do in easily REBOL that I couldn't dream of doing in VB without
*lots* of effort.
-- Gregg
[11/12] from: krobillard:san:rr at: 5-Feb-2003 20:55
On Wednesday 05 February 2003 09:58 am, Andreas wrote:
> Wednesday, February 5, 2003, 2:29:33 PM, Maarten wrote:
> > Andreas Bolka wrote:
<<quoted lines omitted: 6>>
> Best regards,
> Andreas mailto:[andreas--bolka--gmx--net]
Well not exactly. Many times I want to use multiple tools in concert to
achieve the best results. Consider a video game or other multi-media
application. I'd want a slicker-than-snot graphics engine written in C with
assembly for the critical sections. The application framework on top of this
may be written in C++, and I'd drive the entire thing with lots of high-level
scripts.
Yes, I'd use different tools where appropriate, but use them tightly coupled
together. Because I cannot embed REBOL in a C program and write my own
natives I cannot use REBOL in such an application.
> If REBOL has gone this far with that GUI kit, it's clear to me that
> those folks just don't get it. That minimalist, insular mindset might
> play well in the Honeycomb Hideout, but it doesn't cut it for app
> development."
Hah! Playing 'in the Honeycomb Hideout'... Hehehe... that's a great
description of REBOL Tech's attitude. I'd wager that REBOL could be a major
force in computing if only people could actually have access to the internals
and bolt the thing onto their own apps. Well, actually, it would probably
have to be open source, but that's not going to happen any time soon.
As I've said here before, I have zero interest in REBOL as a platform unto
itself. I'd *really* like to be able to use it to drive all my existing
platforms and programs. REBOL is great because it is a great language - not
because it has some cheap-ass GUI. I'll stick to Qt for my GUIs.
-Karl Robillard
[12/12] from: petr:krenzelok:trz:cz at: 6-Feb-2003 8:26
Karl Robillard wrote:
>Yes, I'd use different tools where appropriate, but use them tightly coupled
>together. Because I cannot embed REBOL in a C program and write my own
>natives I cannot use REBOL in such an application.
>
Hello Karl,
I would like you to explain me those issues. I have no low-level
language experience, but if you can explain it to me, I can understand
it. The problem is, we hear above requirement from time to time, but can
you tell me, how it can be accomplished?
1) writing own rebol natives - what does it mean? Do you want to write C
or ASM code, and have rebol.exe contain compiler so it would compile
your code? What about library interface? You can put your "native" code
into some library and hook it into rebol, creating wrapper function -
that way you get your "native" into rebol. Or do you know any other way
of how to acomplish it?
2) What does it mean "embed REBOL in a C program"? You can currently
pass parameters to external rebol.exe or you can use tcp hook, but maybe
you have something other in mind? rebol.dll - linkable library, so you
can directly call rebol functions from your app, pass them parameters,
and obtain results back? Well, but anyway - rebol works with blocks
etc., simply structures not directly available in C language level - you
would have to create transform functions anyway ....
3) as for "some cheap-ass GUI" - yes, View has its limitations. One
month ago or so Carl asked here what direction to take. My opinion is,
that RT should concentrate upon kernel only stuff and plug-ins. What
bothers me is inability to have multimedia-capable apps. View is
compositing engine, but it can't do more than it is designed for. We can
link to OpenGL, other GUI libs probably, and have separate display, but
then we don't need View. I would like to see at least ability to hook
some memory space into View face - simply said - having e.g. embedded
.avi player into View face. Maybe it could be technically possible even
today, as we can pass View face pointer to library call, but noone yet
showed it is technically possible ...
Without such features along with mentioned better fonts, printing, color
text, better keyboard, Unicode etc. we are going to stay behind, and
View is gonna be regarded as a nice toy, with limited feature-set,
always dependant upon what RT decides to put inside ... and it would be
nice to know, what RT thinks about future language/platform direction ...
-pekr-
Notes
- Quoted lines have been omitted from some messages.
View the message alone to see the lines that have been omitted