> thanks for your thoughts. > I must admit I approached shoes totally from the "user experience" > point of view. > > To be successful applications written in "ruby on shoes" need to > behave exactly as other programs do on each of the 3 OSes covered by > shoes. I don't care if .shy really is an archive or not.
This is what brought me to shoes ... the ability to create a GUI that can run cross-platform and be installed (on the 3 major OSeS) just like any other native program. So I tend to agree that any other install work-flow (which is foreign to non-computer people) will be a hindrance to uptake/usability. I'm not saying remove the functionality, just hide it in such a way such that my mother in law doesn't get confused when she installs my program. Etienne > Lets just assume the files is intact and try to run it without popping > up additional windows. Just as every other program does. > > I see a huge similarity to what http://www.rhomobile.com develops for > smart phones right now: > > ...Rhodes lets you quickly build mobile interfaces....It is similar in > concept to MVC frameworks such as Rails, Merb and Camping but much > lighter weight (and hence executable on a mobile device) than any of > these. Along the way of course, we had to implement Ruby for these > device operating systems (iPhone, Windows Mobile, RIM and Symbian).... > > So Rhodes will allow us to program an app in ruby, and then run it on > smart phones like the iPhone, and also on the Windows Mobile, RIM and > Symbian platform, without having to write platform specific code at > all. > > Thats exactly what shoes does for PCs and the OSes Linux, Windows and Mac OS. > > Great times. I only need to learn ruby anymore to cover it all. > > So I am looking for shoes to behave a bit more like every other > program does. And a bit less "creative". Which by the way I really > like. Its refreshing. But I am a coder and get things working the > average guy does not. > > So I wonder if _why could point out what direction shoes development goes to? > > Thanks, > Jan > > > On Thu, Feb 5, 2009 at 6:43 PM, Hugh Sasse <[email protected]> wrote: >> >> >> On Thu, 5 Feb 2009, Jan Martin wrote: >> >>> Hi all, >>> >>> I was irritated by the annoying "Verifying Archive" window that always >>> opens when I try to run a .shy file on Ubuntu 8.04 Hardy Heron Linux. >> >> It's not reassuring that it checks? Should it cache the checksum and >> modification times of the archive so it knows it has checked already? >> Would such a cache be an invasion of privacy in some form? >> >> What is your expectation about this? I'm not saying you are wrong, >> because challenges to current practice are how things improve. Anyway, >> it's not me designing this stuff, so I can't have any strong influence >> on what happens, but if I can help make the debate more specific, that >> may be useful. >> >>> >>> So I created a "runshoes.sh" file with these 2 lines: >>> >>> #!/bin/sh >>> /home/me/Programs/shoes2.run --nox11 $1 >>> >>> After changing the "Open With" in the "Preferences" of the .shy file, >>> all .shy files do now open directly without the annoying "Verifying >>> Archive" window. >>> >>> I wonder if the "--nox11" parameter could be made a default? >> >> Alternatively, maybe it could only pop up a window if there is a >> problem. "About Face" by Alan Cooper, and presumably About Face 2.0 >> which I've not read, argues that software should not trouble users >> with details they frankly don't care about. [See also, "My Pink >> Half of the Drainpipe" by The Bonzo Dog Doo Dah Band, for a similar >> take on this in a more general context :-).] His take on things >> involves a lot more effort by the programmer, and may conflict with >> advice about dying as soon as possible when there is a problem so >> that less damage is done by having an idiot machine trying to figure >> out what is wrong, and "correcting" it mindlessly. >> >>> >>> Also I noticed that most shoes apps at the shoebox end in .rb >>> >>> This probably is because right now shoes is used by programmers only, >>> who already have ruby installed. However it stops further success of >>> shoes, which would be a pity. >> >> It has disadvantages, but it is so that editors syntax highlight >> correctly, for one thing. I think the extension .shu could be used >> for the ruby programs that are shoes specific and not archives >> without causing too much trouble, given fixes to editor >> configuration files to detect this. >> >>> >>> I would like shoes to run OS independent ruby "programs". Which >> >> Some of the inheritance aspects may prevent this, but I'm not entirely >> sure, hence all the difficulties of getting gems to work. >> >>> unfortunately right now is not what we have because executing .shy >>> file is totally different from handling all other executables. (Cannot >> >> But .shy is meant as an archive, isn't it? A better parallel is >> executing a .zip file. Some programs do that, eg, Alice >> http://www.alice.org/ >> though Alice uses the extension .a2w for that. >> >>> talk about Windows, cause I do not have Windows installed anymore.) >>> >>> Does the development go into a direction that is more common, means >>> "What people already know"? >> >> I'm not sure what you mean by that sentence. Do you mean, "is that already >> planned?"? How would "what people already know" apply here, given the >> comments about archives above (if you think those comments are valid)? >> >>> >>> Thanks, >>> Jan >>> >> Hugh >> >
