Yes, we did not have this choice problem when the eye inspectors were introduced.
I am against going along two paths. GT's main goal is easy customisation, we (together) must find ways to make this the best inspector possible, and that can only happen by actually using it. Everyone who is not happy should continue to voice their opinion. The discussion should be constructive and informed - which also means that everyone should give the new tools a fair chance. And I fully agree with the 'emergency inspector' idea. > On 26 Dec 2014, at 13:18, Tudor Girba <[email protected]> wrote: > > Hi, > > I think there must be a misunderstanding. > > There can be a good reason for having a basic inspector around, but I think > the reason is not because people cannot choose what to use. > > There is a toggle to enable/disable the GTInspector. But, even without it, > the main feature of the GTInspector is exactly to be extended the way people > want and not impose a fixed way. This is completely different from what > existed before. In fact, half a year ago there was no problem that people > could neither choose nor extend anything. In the meantime, we can extend our > workflows significantly. Adding the various flavors of browsing objects is > perhaps a couple of lines long and each of us can tweak it because there is > no higher entity that should decide anymore. > > What I cannot quite grasp is that while we pride ourselves with working on a > reflective language, when we have reflective tools, we seem to not be able to > take half an hour to build the tool that fits our needs. I am still > wondering what is needed to improve this. I think that it's a problem of > exercise or of communication, but it seems that just providing the examples > that I linked before is not enough and most people look at the inspector > still as a black box tool. I will try to work on a tutorial to see if it gets > better, but do you find the moldability proposition not valuable or just > unclear? > > But, as I said, there can still be a valid reason to enable a basic inspector > that relies on a minimal of libraries (so, definitely not the Spec one) for > the same reason we have an emergency debugger. > > Cheers, > Doru > > > On Thu, Dec 25, 2014 at 11:43 AM, stepharo <[email protected]> wrote: > I will add basicInspect in Object so that we can get access to the old > inspector. > I like that people can choose their tools! > I mentioned that 20 times but people do not care apparently. > > Stef > > Le 23/12/14 11:50, Norbert Hartl a écrit : > > Is there a way to get the old tools via shortcut? > > I started something new with pharo 4.0 today. I discovered a bug in Nautilus > where every rename or deletion of a method raises a debugger. I tried finding > the bug but struggled because to me the new inspector is really confusing. If > I "just" want to unfold a few levels of references to get a glimpse of the > structure the new tool prevents me from doing that. There is just to much > information in this window and too much happening to me. > To me it looks like a power tool you need to get used to. So it is probably > not the best tool for simple tasks and people new to this environment might > be overwhelmed. At least I would like to be able to use the old tools. > > Norbert > > > > > > > > > > -- > www.tudorgirba.com > > "Every thing has its own flow"
