I wanted to say that I also like more the distribution that Esteban
built instead of the original one of GT Debugger. So.. +1 for that.
And yes, I also like the text besides the buttons since unfortunately
the buttons are not extremely intuitive. +1 for that too.
For the record I gave this feedback two years ago. Fun to see that I'm
so right.
Stef, as for the bydecode debugger, if I remember, you had to
explicitly switch to a bytecode debugger. In the normal debugger a
normal user will use, the bytecode pane was not there.
On Sat, Jan 9, 2016 at 11:08 AM, Dimitris Chloupis
<kilon.al...@gmail.com <mailto:kilon.al...@gmail.com>> wrote:
Dont do it for me , what I did with ChronosManager is only the tip
of the iceberg, I will be redesigning the whole Pharo GUI from
scratch. After I release ChronosManager 0.2 my next victim will be
Nautilus, then inspector and finally debugger. So I will be
building my own GUI for the debugger anyway, in similar style to
ChronosManager, completely custom made , static and icon based.
It wont happen tommorow but slowly and steadily I will make my own
Pharo GUI, obviously radically different to what we have now.
I merely mentioned this to represent a voice of reason over icon
based interfaces that dominate software market anyway.
On Sat, Jan 9, 2016 at 3:49 PM Christophe Demarey
<christophe.dema...@inria.fr <mailto:christophe.dema...@inria.fr>>
wrote:
Hi,
It is impossible to satisfy everyone.
What I would suggest is to have text + icons as default and a
preference to only have icons.
Christophe
Le 9 janv. 2016 à 14:30, Dimitris Chloupis a écrit :
Which brings us to my question, where did tooltips go ?
Squeak had them and then they were gone in pharo.
Personally I dont see the point of having an icon to have
text next to it. Seriously how much time it takes you to
learn what each icon does ?
and the debugger is not exactly a tool you will be using once
per month, so the chance of forgeting gets pretty low after
the first week.
So my vote goes to get rid of text, it wastes valuable gui
space in an environment where windows fight for space. And
even on my 27'' monitor I rather have as compact as possible
GUI.
On Sat, Jan 9, 2016 at 3:05 PM stepharo <steph...@free.fr
<mailto:steph...@free.fr>> wrote:
Le 9/1/16 11:01, Esteban Lorenzano a écrit :
again re-send because of exceed limits with the image
(that’s new?)
with a small tweak, texts (AND icons :P):
And text. I asked that during two years in GT but I was
told it was not possible.
Like that I do not have to learn these icons
What is the Where is?
<Pièce jointe Mail.png>
would that be aceptable for you?
cheers!
Esteban
On 09 Jan 2016, at 09:43, Esteban Lorenzano
<esteba...@gmail.com <mailto:esteba...@gmail.com>> wrote:
(re-send because I exceeded limit.)
Hi,
let’s think positive.
the GTDebugger is a step forward… it allow a lot of
better interactions and of course, it needs some
iterations to make it appealing to everybody.
For instance, I took me 2’ to tweak the debugger
presentation and to get this:
<Screen Shot 2016-01-09 at 09.29.59.png>
(I changed all available… is a trivial task)
and like IMO feels a lot better… and I think is a good
compromise between the old and the new.
Reasons to suggest this approach:
- it keeps old approach who(I think) was good (I can
see the stack, and the flow feels natural from top to down)
- it preserves “the important” (the code) as central.
- it gives space for adding columns (like the bytecode).
Now… I can understand you want icons with text, and
that can be hacked too…
So… can we have an agreement?
Esteban
ps: btw… using GT with Fast Table we can also avoid
those annoying paginated lists too
On 09 Jan 2016, at 08:53, stepharo <steph...@free.fr
<mailto:steph...@free.fr>> wrote:
Thanks for your testimony.
I'm not against GTDebugger per se. I believe that we
should have better tools
but we should take time for building better tools
(even if this is two years that moosers use or not
this new debugger).
I would appreciate a process where users can give real
feedback and we can simplify/shape our tools nicely.
Now for the mooc I will not present GTDebugger. So
students will not use Pharo 50
Stef
Le 08/01/2016 21:22, stepharo a écrit :
I'm sorry but this debugger should not be the
default one.
MONDAY we are filming our mooc and we have to
explain the debugger and
personally I do not see the gain:
- It looks a lot more complex to me and I do not
want to have to
redo all the screenshots
of our lecture.
- Just that I have to learn the meaning of small
icons.
- Why do we need a special pane for the evaluator
- Why there is a type column.
- Sorry but I'm not convinced about the moldable
aspect behind the
story (no need to argue I know it)
I would like to avoid to be forced to use not the
latest version of
Pharo for the mooc.
Such changes are arriving far too late in the
release. We do not change
the debugger itself the day of code freeze.
We decided that the GTDebugger can be included but
to me it never meant
that it should be the default one.
I think that experts can choose the debugger they
want. The newbies don't.
Stef
IMO the old debugger is way more intuitive.
When I used the debugger of Eclipse for java I was
lost. When I used
Spec debugger I thought "Oh, this is not so hard in
fact". And I lose
the feeling with GTDebugger. And the debugger is one
of the main source
of interest for newbies.
Maybe we could have a button on the spec Debugger
"Switch to GTDebugger"?
--
Mariano
http://marianopeck.wordpress.com
