Leo is a very useful program and environment. Thanks Edward.
Functionally it feels fairly complete. So I agree with Ville:
Continuing the improvement of its polish, appearance, documentation
and setting interfaces get my votes for the focus of a 5.0 release.
Rod
On Jun 20, 12:11 am, Ville M. Vainio vivai...@gmail.com wrote:
Sorry for not analyzing the whole thread. Still busy time in my life ;-)
More than anything else, Leo would benefit from polish, polish, polish:
- Get the completion story in shape (perhaps something I can code in
july/august)
- Simplifications / clarifications. Rename @nosent to @write, wider
@url support (for local files)...
- Improve quickstart.leo
- UI polish where needed (not much, perhaps more mainstream colors,
better icon bar etc)
large data model changes are probably not needed. @auto-rst, @nosent,
@file, @edit, @path, @url get you a long way,
On Mon, Jun 20, 2011 at 1:22 AM, Terry Brown terry_n_br...@yahoo.com wrote:
On Sun, 19 Jun 2011 12:53:49 -0700
taa, Leo Newbie starman...@gmail.com wrote:
Being able to run your data through a script is not a selling point
for people who have no idea what a script is, so maybe one click
install isn't critical.
I respectfully disagree. One-click install IS critical for more
widespread use of Leo.
I don't understand why a user's knowledge (or lack thereof) of the
concept of scripts would have any bearing on whether there should be a
one-click installer.
I was probably over-generalizing. A one-click install would be good
for its own sake. Even for hardcore Leo users / coders it would sure
be nice to be able to get it running on other machines that easily.
And a one-click install would definitely increase the number of people
who try Leo, which is obviously essential if we're going to increase
user base, so yes, one-click install IS critical for more widespread
use of Leo.
My comment came from thinking that almost all the uses I make of Leo
depend on at least simple scripts to glue stuff together. In a way
that's not really true, seeing a lot of the time I'm just using it to
write code, which doesn't require any scripting. If all you do is use
Leo for writing code, I guess I don't really know how it stacks up
against other environments, since the only other one I've used is
Emacs, which I gave up for Leo. For me, the ability to script Leo,
the python access to nodes, and the possibilities for non-coding uses
etc. would make me choose Leo over other systems even if they were
stronger on the coding aspect. But that's just me.
I agree with aeromorrison that a period of user experience refinement
would be good for Leo, it's just a question of people wanting to work
on that. I'd like to work on the free layout stuff, the icon bar could
probably be spiffed up, an installer would be nice, and a simple
interface to the @auto / @nosent / @shadow / @file / @edit / @auto-rst
would probably help a lot of people. Plugin management could also be
refined.
The documentation has improved, although to be fair I think it was
always better than the average open source projects. But it could be
improved more, particularly with respect to plugins and how users
access the documentation (What's this? kind of tools). Perhaps we
could have a little animated character which pops up and asks you what
you're trying to do :-) Kidding.
Maybe some bug-report / wish list items would be a place to start on
some of this?
Cheers -Terry
--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups
leo-editor group.
To post to this group, send email to leo-editor@googlegroups.com.
To unsubscribe from this group, send email to
leo-editor+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
For more options, visit this group
athttp://groups.google.com/group/leo-editor?hl=en.
--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups
leo-editor group.
To post to this group, send email to leo-editor@googlegroups.com.
To unsubscribe from this group, send email to
leo-editor+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
For more options, visit this group at
http://groups.google.com/group/leo-editor?hl=en.
