I'm sorry but I disagree. XML as a meta-language is old, bad and shit. readable=good xml=really bad (and not-readable either, most of the times... unless you are some kind of cyborg)
El 12/02/2011, a las 7:35a.m., nullPointer escribió: > > My knowledge of Smalltalk/Squeak/Pharo is limited, but I believe somethings. > > 1- I believe Pharo/Squeak needs a different way for "render" the morphs. I > suppose Rome go to that direction. > > 2- A language, human readable, for define the UI. I believe than XAML or > XUL, based on XML, be good examples. And connect the UI to > Controller/Presenter/ViewModel of same way, through bindings, Commands etc > like WPF. > > The code generated for designer of VW or Smalltalk/X don´t readable and > updatable for a human, only for the same designer mechanism. Don´t works of > example. It´s a OLD way, is a BAD way, is a shit way. > > 3- Implements a set of widgets. That is not difficult I believe. The main > problem is the way of connect that widgets with data. I repeat above, > bindings mechanism from WPF is a good-good example. > Perhaps exists some controls for build... numeric controls with formatable > values, datatime controls, grids (nobody needs a grid control on > Pharo/Smalltalk?? I´m unique? How I can create a enterprise app without > that?) > > 4- Implement the designer. BUT, that step don´t is needed if the language > for define the UI is a standard. Exists many designers of XAML and some for > XUL languages. Somebody could use that designers for build the UI, and add > the XML in a spec method on Smalltalk image. We need only a "reader" for > interpret the XAML code and build the morphic structure (or HTML render > structure) > > > My conseil is: if we need implement set of widgets and a language for design > UI is much more recommend base us in the new "way of do", don´t the old. > > Regards. > -- > View this message in context: > http://forum.world.st/A-new-GUI-visual-designer-tp3067111p3302570.html > Sent from the Pharo Smalltalk mailing list archive at Nabble.com. >
