Re: ChatRev was Re: IDE Interoperability
On 28 Apr 2009, at 01:30, Nicolas Cueto wrote: Hi Björnke, Do you know if your chat stack will work on Rev 2.9? It should work with rev versions down to at least 2.6.1, prolly even earlier ones. It's also fully metacard compatible. if you have further questions, feel free to contact me directly. Björnke -- official ChatRev page: http://bjoernke.com/runrev/chatrev.php Chat with other RunRev developers: go stack URL http://bjoernke.com/stacks/chatrev/chatrev1.3b3.rev; ___ metacard mailing list metacard@lists.runrev.com http://lists.runrev.com/mailman/listinfo/metacard
Re: IDE Interoperability
I have been thinking into a similar direction lately. The main issue is about how to decide what is a component and what isn't. For example a script editor contains stuff for debugging, auto-completion (... sometimes), colorisation, undo handling, etc. So should a script editor be one component, or a dozen? It's probably best to just start somewhere, and then readjust constantly what degree of atomisation actually makes sense. Also, I think this should be a fork of metacard, and not a replacement of the current mc ide. On 27 Apr 2009, at 14:48, David Bovill wrote: ...so I thought that might be a good place to start = Script Editor Switcheroo API. That is a way to switch between different Script Editors, and to be able to define and add your own alterrnatives. ... -- official ChatRev page: http://bjoernke.com/runrev/chatrev.php Chat with other RunRev developers: go stack URL http://bjoernke.com/stacks/chatrev/chatrev1.3b3.rev; ___ metacard mailing list metacard@lists.runrev.com http://lists.runrev.com/mailman/listinfo/metacard
Re: IDE Interoperability
Hello Björnke von Gierke, David, and y'all, From: Björnke von Gierke b...@mac.com Subject: Re: IDE Interoperability See above for context. The main issue is about how to decide what is a component and what isn't. The OPERATIVE word here is DECIDE. There is no BEST-answer to this. It depends on what we want to do, how we want to do it, who we are doing it for, etc. Should a script editor be one component, or a dozen? The gist of components versus monolithic systems (aka All-in-One) is that componennts can be substituted for other ones, without adversely affecting the operation of the system, as-long-as the component BEHAVES as it should. Moreover the separation of concerns makes developing and maintaining the system (system's components) easier. The downside of modularization is, of course, the increased complexity and overhead of handling multiple entities versus just one. You don't want to have too-many, nor too-little. Btw, OOP design/programming deals with this issue incessantly. For example a script editor contains stuff for debugging, auto-completion (sometimes), colorisation, undo handling, etc. My take-on-this is the following. Any substantive feature that people may want to program differently should be component-ized so that these people can replace the feature with their own version of it as-long-as it conforms the component's interface (protocols, API, etc). Debugging is a prime candidate for being component-ized. Colorization is a FAIR candidate for being component-ized, given the wide variety of prefs in terms of WHAT should be colorized, which colors should be used (some people are blind to some colors), etc. The same goes for auto-completion because coding-standards vary from person-to-person. Yet let's face it: most people will USE the defaults. As for UNDO it's too-fundamental to be componentized ... and, moreover, way-too-technical; and, more-to-the-point, NOT something that people will need to customize. It's probably best to just start somewhere... Quite right. I'm looking forward to see what you guys come up with. :-) Alain ___ metacard mailing list metacard@lists.runrev.com http://lists.runrev.com/mailman/listinfo/metacard
Re: IDE Interoperability
On 27 Apr 2009, at 21:27, Alain Farmer wrote: Quite right. I'm looking forward to see what you guys come up with. :-) What? Us? No way, you do it :P Bjoernke -- official ChatRev page: http://bjoernke.com/runrev/chatrev.php Chat with other RunRev developers: go stack URL http://bjoernke.com/stacks/chatrev/chatrev1.3b3.rev; ___ metacard mailing list metacard@lists.runrev.com http://lists.runrev.com/mailman/listinfo/metacard
Re: IDE Interoperability
2009/4/27 Björnke von Gierke b...@mac.com I have been thinking into a similar direction lately. The main issue is about how to decide what is a component and what isn't. For example a script editor contains stuff for debugging, auto-completion (... sometimes), colorisation, undo handling, etc. So should a script editor be one component, or a dozen? It's probably best to just start somewhere, and then readjust constantly what degree of atomisation actually makes sense. For the Script Editor - I'd say the debugger is separate, and the other features you mention should be Script Editor plugins or options. Also, I think this should be a fork of metacard, and not a replacement of the current mc ide. I guess that makes sense. Structurally it would be nice if certain MC components evolved for closer interop. So where to start? How about starting with a basic component and create a switcheroo palette which would work in either IDE? Which component, maybe one of: 1. Property Palettte 2. Script Editor 3. Tools Palette ___ metacard mailing list metacard@lists.runrev.com http://lists.runrev.com/mailman/listinfo/metacard
Re: IDE Interoperability
Hi Björnke, Do you know if your chat stack will work on Rev 2.9? Thanks. -- Nicolas Cueto ___ metacard mailing list metacard@lists.runrev.com http://lists.runrev.com/mailman/listinfo/metacard
Re: IDE Interoperability
Hi Björnke and y'all, I'm only a lurker on the revInterop list. I listen and react-to some of the things you're discussing to make Rev interoperable, in-order-to brainstorm, design, and craft my own xCard-inspired application; authoring system to be more precise. My xCard will be a Web-app just as TileStack is endeavouring to be, but my approach is VERY-different. I've been working at it for close-to a decade, yet it still remains VERY-original. It's NOT that I have been slacking-off; it's just that reality had to catch-up to what I have been envisioning for over TWO decades. And NOW, with the advent of Web 3.0, it finally HAS! :)) Or finally *will* if you disagree that Web 3.0 is upon us. Catch the Wave as it swells, NOT as it breaks upon the beach and everyone knows about it. The gist of my plan is for my xCard-inspired authoring system to become Web 3.0's [first] Killer-App.. the one that empowers the rest of us to author and manage Web-3x applications: from Rolodexes to autonomous agents endowed with artificial intelligence. :-) It's a Brave New World, y'all. Let's lead the way with something as FUN and simple-to-use as HyperCard was.. euh still *is*, I suppose. I don't want to be a heretic ;-) Btw i will be calling my ware Lazarus. Guess why, eh! ;) Fading-back into the obscurity, ;) Alain On 27 Apr 2009, at 21:27, Alain wrote: Quite right. I'm looking forward to see what you guys come up with. :-) What? Us? No way, you do it :P Bjoernke ___ metacard mailing list metacard@lists.runrev.com http://lists.runrev.com/mailman/listinfo/metacard
