Le 28 août 2014 20:16, "kmo" <[email protected]> a écrit : > > philippeback wrote > > Building a UI with Morphic alone is what one would use to do something > > very > > custom (like a game for example). > > > > Now, creating a larger UI that way is definitely going to be super pain in > > the assets. > > > > That's where Spec does fit. > > Is there any evidence of this? As far as I know no one has built anything > more complex than a class browser. I would say Spec was incapable of > building a complex interface of any kind. It's clumsy, developer-hostile, > and counter-intuitive. > > The whole Spec process of writing code in three different places is the very > definition of a /super pain in the asset/s. it is far less intuitive to my > mind than creating composite morphs. > > Progress on Spec is glacially slow - but that's not the problem. Spec is > profoundly misconceived and fundamentally flawed and offers nothing over raw > Morphic. The Spec model is simply not how anyone would want to build an > interface in 2014. I certainly would never use it. >
What it offers is some regularity over the API Frankly, do you find that the Morphic widgets APIs are ok? On Java I used Swing a lot. But that was no walk in the park either. Even with tools like Matisse. In Tcl/Tk things were good but all by hand. And the widgets were aged despite some efforts. UI work is hard to do well with scarce resources. At the end of the day, my UIs are done in HTML5, JQuery and CSS + SVG. And clients are fine with that. Maybe with SDL and Woden will we get something new. Phil > > > > > > > -- > View this message in context: http://forum.world.st/Roadmap-on-tools-tp4774285p4775282.html > Sent from the Pharo Smalltalk Developers mailing list archive at Nabble.com. >
