Hi Stef,
On Sat, Mar 21, 2015 at 8:52 PM, stepharo <steph...@free.fr> wrote: > > > Le 21/3/15 13:58, Tudor Girba a écrit : > >> Hi, >> >> I fully agree with your API suggestions, but I do not quite understand >> why you say that it is because of the scripting that the API does not look >> like this. It's the opposite I think. >> >> When you "script" you want as succinct as possible (so, no moveBehind: >> and stuff). And you want to gradually add details and not be forced to >> specify them from the very beginning (so, good defaults). In fact, the rule >> of thumb that I argue for is that a good scripting (and in fact any API) >> interface is one that allows you to make a difference with any new line of >> code. That means that, ideally, we would want every line to be able to live >> on its own and not require another one. It's obviously not always possible, >> but I find it helps me when I grow an API. >> > > use the technique you want but to not dillute my point. I do not care how > you do it. > I care about having details away. > To me the feel that roassal gives me is that this is a tool to make demo to > impress audience > as to grow something, while I think that it could be a killer app with two > faces: > predefined compact api and a scripting way where you open the trunk and > build your own. A long script will not impress any audience. These are the same goals, not different. The idea of builders (Grapher is such a builder) is supposed to provide those levels (the basic engine can do everything, and the builder provides a more constrained higher level API). I fully agree that the current builders are not expressive enough. And I also agree that we need a dedicated effort to just making them more compact. We are fully in sync and I do not dilute your point, but I do not want to leave the impression that "scripting" is something bad, or secondary :). Cheers, Doru > > S. > > -- www.tudorgirba.com "Every thing has its own flow"
