Hi,
On 20/02/17 21:03, john lunzer wrote:
I think every time we have one of these impromptu "let's make Leo
great again" brainstorming sessions I think the core users (which are
represented on these forums) are end up being really hard on Leo (and
by proxy you Edward).
I've been through a couple of these so my take is that the
suggestions/criticisms aren't trying to invalidate Leo. There is a
truth though, Leo is not accessible to a large group of individuals,
but it is the group of individuals who are not willing to put the time
in. There were definitely some hurdles in the very beginning but
you've acknowledged them and dedicated large swaths of time to
removing the hurdles.
I think the other side of the suggestions/criticisms is the feeling I
think most core users of Leo have which is, "I know there is power
there, I just can't dig fast enough". I think all of us are looking
for is a bigger shovel so we can dig into Leo faster. I believe you've
acknowledge this (your dedication to adopting all of the Pyzo
niceties). But because you actually listen to your whining users, this
process can end up with a lot veiled empty threats, "you had better
fix Leo or it'll get left behind."
For me is more like: there is a lot of interesting stuff happening and
hopefully some ideas will reach Leo. I'm sure Leo ideas have reached me
(particularly the self referential programmable document tree) as some
ideas from Mathematica, Jupyter and Smalltalk. Leo was the first
software that made the blurring between code and data pretty clear to me
(despite of encounter it before on Scheme or TeXmacs), because of the
way Leo integrates this idea in an outliner document with @button nodes.
It clicked on me after five years using Leo, but interactive
documentation could change that for a lot of potential users.
I want Leo ideas to reach more people and is good to see part of what is
getting attention out there, even as an exercise to discard it. Leo
powerful DOM used for literate computing is an idea that deserves more
public. But if this idea gets traction or if it can be implemented, even
with such a small number of developers (that's the rule not the
exception in Open Source) is still something to be seen. If is not
adopted or slowly implemented by a small team, that doesn't diminish any
of the present value of Leo.
You're already leagues ahead of most developers who simply can't
acknowledge where there is room for improvement. And you go beyond, by
not only taking care of the bugs and low hanging fruit but constantly
improving Leo so that it is continually more capable.
I think most people just don't get it, listen up everyone, it's /most
just Edward, with a side helping of Terry./ This is an astounding
piece of software, not only for what it does that nobody else does,
but for the fact that it was wrought by such a small base of support.
Also Leo is a inspiring community and tool.
About small communities making Free/Libre Open Source Software tools, we
have some conversation on the Pharo community[1], that points to some
structural issues of this dynamic (studied by Nadia Eghbal):
[1]
https://pharoweekly.wordpress.com/2016/10/26/about-alternate-ways-to-teach-pharo/
Cheers,
Offray
--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups
"leo-editor" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email
to [email protected].
To post to this group, send email to [email protected].
Visit this group at https://groups.google.com/group/leo-editor.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.
