Yes, RB would immensely benefit from some doc. See other thread on that.
I will start something pnce I get it wotking for my case. Phil Le 2 avr. 2014 13:30, "Goubier Thierry" <[email protected]> a écrit : > > > Le 02/04/2014 08:12, Tudor Girba a écrit : > >> The language itself is less interesting for me, but what makes it stand >> out is that it has a coherent and robust philosophy behind and >> phenomenal goals to reach. In Pharo, we have the luxury of building on >> top of coherent and robust philosophy (even if different from the >> Wolfram one) and we should try as much as possible to keep our eyes on >> phenomenal goals that seem unreachable. >> > > I see two barriers in the current Pharo to be able to reach that: > > - Lack of clear documentation of the underlying code management structure > and facilities. It takes ages to get into the gritty details of things like > RPackage and the refactory framework, documentation is very often limited > to "this is the way Nautilus does it", and "no worry about changing it, > Nautilus developpers are the same guy" which ends up being very painful for > someone outside that core group. > > - GUI conservatism. The choice made in Pharo in the overall look is to be > conservative and business-like, and so blame the too-advanced, too-fancy > Morphic (and at the same time have Roassal pushing the enveloppe, but > outside the normal toolkit :) which means someone would find it probably > hard to do Roassal-based development tools). Glamour, Spec and GTToolkit > are interesting to look at along that "conservatism" in GUI. > > Another thing I like in Wolfram's work is attention to details: >> http://blog.wolfram.com/2008/01/10/ten-thousand-hours-of-design-reviews/ >> >> Details are crucial, and all the effort in Pharo around naming and >> redesigning what already exists is incredibly important. But, it is >> precisely at the moment when we are knee-deep in details that is crucial >> to keep our eyes on the phenomenal long term goals. >> > > I'm less convinced by that. Refining, trying, fiddling, spending hundreds > of iterations on making drag and drop or scrolling perfect, yes. > Redesigning whole chunks of the low-level facilities without really seeing > where we will end up, at at the same time presenting a very conservative > view on top of it, not much. > > For example, I know of a GTInspector use case which is entirely justified > by deficiencies in the standard system browser ;) > > There is so much to build. Let's be bold. >> > > +100 > > Thierry > -- > Thierry Goubier > CEA list > Laboratoire des Fondations des Systèmes Temps Réel Embarqués > 91191 Gif sur Yvette Cedex > France > Phone/Fax: +33 (0) 1 69 08 32 92 / 83 95 > >
