On 4 April 2016 at 16:14, Thierry Goubier <[email protected]> wrote:
> > > 2016-04-04 15:02 GMT+02:00 Igor Stasenko <[email protected]>: > >> >> >> On 4 April 2016 at 15:44, Thierry Goubier <[email protected]> >> wrote: >> >>> >>> >>> 2016-04-04 14:24 GMT+02:00 Igor Stasenko <[email protected]>: >>> >>>> >>>> >>>> On 4 April 2016 at 14:28, Thierry Goubier <[email protected]> >>>> wrote: >>>> >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> 2016-04-04 13:18 GMT+02:00 Stephan Eggermont <[email protected]>: >>>>> >>>>>> On 04-04-16 11:58, Igor Stasenko wrote: >>>>>> >>>>>>> Apart from being 'cool to have', full-fledged word processing is not >>>>>>> a thing, that you dealing with on a daily basis in environment, like >>>>>>> Pharo. >>>>>>> >>>>>> I'm sure that is the case for you. I wonder if that is the case for >>>>>> many Pharo users. >>>>>> AFAIK there are a lot of pillar users. >>>>>> >>>>> >>>>> If it is for Pillar, then you don't really need a full-fledged, paper >>>>> oriented layout engine. A web-like layout environment is probably enough, >>>>> and much less costly to build. >>>>> >>>>> >>>> Now count, how much world-wide resources are dedicated to web-based and >>>> browser-based technology development and compare with our resource base. I >>>> think it is foolish to set an unrealistic goals. >>>> >>> >>> I think that if we didn't have unrealistic goals, we wouldn't be in that >>> community :) >>> >>> >>>> >>>>> For me the problem with the TxText model is that it blocks the >>>>>> possibility of doing >>>>>> that later, if and when there is enough development capacity to >>>>>> invest in this. >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> There is enough technology in the Pharo universe to do it (or at least >>>>> something approaching). Sometimes, what you need is the ideas / the >>>>> rationale from a project to do it. And I do believe TxText has some of it, >>>>> even if you consider that TxText can't be extended to do it (and I'll >>>>> consider that you are right on this). >>>>> >>>>> Now, it's on nobody's roadmap, so it may take a while to emerge (if it >>>>> does at all). >>>>> >>>>> Last time, i installed LaTex package on my mac, it took maybe hour or >>>> so.. About 1Gb of files, tools, compilers, GUI, text editors.. >>>> Now think, how much years it would take to get remotely close to such >>>> level of development? And where are those people or money that would allow >>>> us to think this is viable path and we should throw everything into it to >>>> get there? >>>> >>> >>> Have you really looked into what is the core of the TeX algorithm? The >>> fact that an interactive version of it was done multiple times in history? >>> (Self / InterViews to cite the ones I know and have used) >>> >>> >>>> It is nice to dream time to time, but let us be realistic. >>>> >>> >>> I'd say that we have an environment where we can dream; where >>> reinventions can be done at low cost (or at lower cost than others), that >>> we can even afford to be wrong and throw a project away. Otherwise we >>> wouldn't have Athens / TxText / GT ... >>> >>> Mind you, I'm not asking you to do it :) I simply know that some of >>> TxText stuff is usable in that context. And that given the goal, shortcuts >>> are possible. >>> >>> >> But do you realising that we talking here about different scales of >> things? >> Let me drive an analogy: >> - you found an engineer that created a rocket engine in his garage. >> Engine is perfect, stable, works well etc etc etc.. >> And you asking him: >> - can we fly to the Moon tomorrow? >> >> Huh? >> >> Okay, if you find specialist, who can plan the mission, find the producer >> of solar panels, find specialist of long range communications, find >> specialists of long-range observations to determine the landing site, find >> god know how many other specialist and experts in various areas, only then >> you could possibly find and answer to your question. >> But asking such question to just a rocket engine specialist.. is just >> foolish. >> > > Don't do analogies, they don't work. > > First I said: for Pillar users, a word processing software is not that > useful. If you're using Pillar, you're not looking for a Microsoft Word > GUI, otherwise you'd be using Microsoft Word and not Pillar :) > > Analogies don't work. Right :) I never used Pillar and have remote ideas about what it does or requires. From that perspective you appeal to wrong person. On your place i would be asking a guy who knows Pillar innards about it. Forgive my ignorance.. but i am not omniscient. > Second is: Pharo (and all smalltalks) is the place where supposedly > impossible stuff can be developed, simply because it takes far less lines > than anywhere else. No guarantees, but, at the rate we're dropping projects > by the side of the road (and reinventing stuff multiple times over), we > have manpower to spare :) > > But that is orthogonal. It is possible to do anything on turing-complete environment. Taking shortcuts etc etc yadda yadda. Now do such statements alone can bring us anywhere closer to grand goals and grand projects? Nope. Only hard day to day work could bring us there.. Not talks about how cool we are. > Regards, > > Thierry > > -- Best regards, Igor Stasenko.
