VID, %, dialects WAS: percent! - new datatype request

The VID vein, and what should be added to make it a better dialect for GUI layouts, is something I've spent a little time thinking about, and I have an opinion. (saw that coming, didn't ya? :) VID is good, really good I think. Could it be better? Undoubtedly. Remember, though, that VID+Layout is just *one example* of a GUI dialect. I keep seeing requests from people for RT to add this or that to REBOL/VID/IOS but I think the real future lies with us. Yes, RT may want or need to add certain key functionality but they have already given us a foundation on which we can build pretty much anything we want. Yes, a standard is a terrific thing to have around, and they need to be aware of its importance, but I think we're going to see many "specialized" standards emerge over time. VID is a good, general, GUI dialect for doing screen layouts. As Joel mentioned, resizable screens aren't easy to get right. Resizing individual components isn't so hard, but maintaining a well balanced layout *is*. Just look at how most apps handle it. Rather than saying VID is lacking because it can't handle proportional sizing, we can write our own flex-view and flex-layout functions based on lessons learned writing ad-hoc resize routines. Maybe it's even a combination. Maybe defining a flex-face style gets us most of the way there. Is there a single heuristic we can apply to all visual layouts? Of course not! It all depends on what, and with whom, you're trying to communicate. We should see dialects for all kinds of specific purposes, and templates to go with them. Some will be industry specific, some output/device related, and some process oriented. One of the problems I *do* see is that the stuff RT provides is more than good enough , so not many people in this small community are driven to replace them, or even enhance them in a major way. Another problem is the lack of documentation that would help us to tackle those tasks with confidence. If things were reversed (i.e. really good docs and limited feature implementations), what do you think would happen? Would we complain about the poor examples and write REBOL off, or would we see the potential and rise to the challenge? In the early days of VB, writing VBXs with the CDK was pretty painful, so not many people did it. The concept behind them was so powerful, though, that it survived. Now, I'd bet not many people write VB apps using only the 11 standard controls. The potential is there. --Gregg

> -----Original Message----- > From: [rebol-bounce--rebol--com] [mailto:[rebol-bounce--rebol--com]]On Behalf Of > but I think we're going to see many "specialized" standards emerge over > time.

I agree with Robert that extending VID is the way to go if we are reffering to the distributable /View binary. But I think its encouraged to have additional VIDs as long as there isnt a push to wrap it up with the /View distributions. Problem would be the potential for redundant code and therefore larger binary distributions when we already have almost an extremely flexible VID already. Paul Tretter

Hi Robert, I guess my thinking is that VID is going to be there, and will be a reference, but other interface dialects will, and should, emerge. I see dialects more like a toolkit, or a library, than part of the core language. << Maybe it's still early enought to try other roads for Rebol & GUI development. For this we should create prototype dialects to play around with and migrate those features into VID. >> We just have to avoid VID bloat and maintain design consistency. Fortunately, RT has the final say so it can't hurt for us to make suggestions. :) --Gregg

> -----Original Message----- > From: [rebol-bounce--rebol--com] [mailto:[rebol-bounce--rebol--com]]On Behalf Of > reference, but other interface dialects will, and should, emerge. I see > dialects more like a toolkit, or a library, than part of the core language.

I agree with you. Sometimes Open Source projects have many problems for this reason, since everybody thinks its idea is better than another one... result? Lot of small projects, but no one is really powerful. Look at (example) to Linux Window Managers. There are a lot of GUIs, but many of them are almost equivalent... think if all these developers (very good analyst/programmers) do concentrate their power to only a GUI... look at KDE... look at GNOME... Creating many projects (less resources for every one) we will advantage the competitors (other languages, other GUIs... ). regards. --Alessandro--

> > -----Original Message----- > > From: [rebol-bounce--rebol--com] [mailto:[rebol-bounce--rebol--com]]On

> > Gregg Irwin > > Sent: Friday, June 14, 2002 6:29 PM > > I guess my thinking is that VID is going to be there, and will be a > > reference, but other interface dialects will, and should, emerge. I

> > dialects more like a toolkit, or a library, than part of the core

> Hi, that's all OK. I just wanted to point out that fragmenting the

> community in a group using VID, one using DVI and the next using IDV

> decrease the community power. If we all concentrate on one goal it's

> This doesn't mean that VID shouldn't be expanded etc. it has to! > > Here in Germany we have a saying like: If you try to catch two

> chance it big you won't catch any. > > Adding new styles to VID is perfect, creating a complete new general

> that's not compatible with VID... I don't know if it's that useful to

> with this. Robert > > -- > To unsubscribe from this list, please send an email to > [rebol-request--rebol--com] with "unsubscribe" in the > subject, without the quotes. >