I agree with Don that J6's simple, consistent, cross-platform GUI specification language (wd) is very compelling.
I agree with Bjorn and Raul that hopefully, as the beta progresses, a toolset providing something similar to wd will become available for J7 across all J front ends (JFEs). This will allow users to output simple solutions quickly. The neat thing will be that the full power of the underlying technologies (Gtk, HTML5/CSS/Javascript) will also be available to the user if they want to take their UI to the next level. One of my strong desires for J7 is that environment/toolsets be as similar as possible between JFEs. From the user's perspective this will mean they are able to use the same commands, no matter which JFE they are using (although the default output technology may be different). Utilities like viewmat & plot are good examples. The J command should be as similar as possible across JFEs, but on ide/jhs perhaps the plot is drawn using canvas, whereas on ide/gtk it is drawn in a Gtk window. Another example is a command like "open" which can be used to open a script for editing in J6 IDE, as well as in ide/gtk. Ideally this will also be introduced to ide/jhs. The more the base experience in these J7 JFEs differ, the more we risk further fragmenting our small community. > From: Björn Helgason > Sent: Friday, 3 September 2010 08:03 > > When you create forms in J6 you give some instructions and then J > generates code for you. > > I guess you will have tools to generate JS code for you after a few > versions. > > There are already some demos that can use used to test out some gui > connections to J. > > The beauty of J has always been to allow you to write short code and > having tools available that takes care of complex operations. > > The beta now is presented to users in a much earlier stage than before > so much of the tools are not there yet. > > Helps are not out yet either. > > 2010/9/2 Don Guinn <[email protected]> > > > What worried me and prompted writing was Eric's message saying that > > JavaScript was a good way to make J web aware. I agree; however, you > can't > > just use JavaScript. In order to do the job you need HTML and all the > other > > goodies to do the job. When I last did projects for customers most of > my > > time was spent on the customer interface. Little time on the actual > > application part. If the customer interface is JavaScript, then what > is the > > advantage in using J? Writing in a more common language, though may > take a > > little longer than in J saves little and sounds better when selling. > The > > whole development process needs speeding up. > > > > On Thu, Sep 2, 2010 at 12:34 PM, Raul Miller <[email protected]> > > wrote: > > > > > On Thu, Sep 2, 2010 at 11:53 AM, Don Guinn <[email protected]> > wrote: > > > > use. The wd interface, though restrictive, was portable and not > hard to > > > > learn. I hope that the released J7 can retain some of this > ability for > > > one > > > > to concentrate on the problem at hand and not require large > amounts of > > > time > > > > and resources getting the presentation to the user right. > > > > > > A subset of wd should be doable, for jhs. > > > > > > That said, tracking the changes that are going on here, and > > > being productive with the beta system despite its current > > > omissions takes a fair amount of energy. > > > > > > Personally, I have only had a little bit of time to work with > > > jhs and am sticking with j6 until j7 gets closer to release > > > freeze. > > > > > > -- > > > Raul ---------------------------------------------------------------------- For information about J forums see http://www.jsoftware.com/forums.htm
