Re: [Pharo-users] [Moose-dev] glamorous toolkit: v0.4.0

[Konrad Hinsen via Pharo-users]

--- Begin Message ---

Hi Doru and Offray,

Tudor Girba via Pharo-users <pharo-users@lists.pharo.org> writes:

> A separate editor is needed when the markup has little resemblance
> with the output, which is the case for HTML. In this case,
> bidirectional editing, as shown in Sketch-n-Sketch, is indeed a very
> nice thing.

Or when the output reflects only a part of the input document. I suspect
Offray has the same kind of application in mind as myself, knowing a bit
of his work, and it is indeed a bit different from what you are
designing GT for. What we do (mainly) is documenting computations, not
software. A computation consists of code, input data, and selected
results.  This inevitably requires some metadata that needs to be
editable but should not necessarily appear in the output. The most basic
technology for documenting computations is the notebook (Mathematica,
Jupyter, ...) where the metadata is just the cell structure (which does
show in the output). More sophisticated systems (Emacs OrgMode for
example) allow more fine-tuning, making for much nicer output, but also
requiring quite a bit more metadata.

> However, in the case of Documenter and the Pillar markup the output is
> closely related to the sources part. In this case, having the two

>From what I know about Pillar, I agree. The way this is handled in
Documenter is indeed very appropriate for very simple markup like that.
And simple markup is highly desirable whenever sufficient.

> worlds be supported seamlessly in the same experience is a huge
> advantage, especially for non-technical people. The interface from
> Documenter is not trivially possible (I for now never saw one like
> that, and I looked specifically for it) because of the prerequisites

The closest I have seen is MarkText: https://marktext.github.io/website/
Its "focus mode" works much like Documenter in principle, but feels less
fluent somehow.


Offray Vladimir Luna Cárdenas via Pharo-users
<pharo-users@lists.pharo.org> writes:

> but is not their only concern. ATM seems that new GT is pretty tied to
> Pillar and software documentation (which is fine, but not the path I'm
> primarily interested).

Me neither, but I still find a lot of interesting ideas in GT and I
suspect that a tool closer to my interests could be built with reasonable
effort from the bricks that GT provides.

My holy grail is a document that describes both software and
computations, combining the features of notebooks and literate
programming into a hypertext-like system in which I can start at the
surface (the computation) and "zoom in" to any part of the software,
getting documentation and not just source code.

Cheers,
  Konrad.

--- End Message ---