[Pharo-project] A new GUI visual designer

Esteban Lorenzano estebanlm at gmail.com
Sat Feb 12 14:32:08 CET 2011

Yes, Smalltalk :) 
You can do exactly the same in a much better way.

Last 10 years the world tried to use XML to... well, pretty much everything: as a meta-language to many DSLs, like XUL, XAML, but also for configurations, state-machines, etc.  And it was a big failure... and the best example is that even in communities where the overcomplicated stuff is "the way to go" (like java), are leaving that, replacing it for most "in-code" ways (for example, using "scripting" languages). So... why are we going to go back on something the world is leaving? Of course, as much other "dead" things, XML is going to be around a lot of time... but is not anymore in the innovation line, and everybody can note that. 

think on something like: 

	<TextBlock Margin="20">Welcome to the World of XAML</TextBlock>
	<Button Margin="10" HorizontalAlignment="Right">OK</Button>

how it would be in Smalltalk? there are several ways... let's take the "Seaside way":

xaml stackPanel: [
	xaml textBlock 
		margin: 20;
		with: 'Welcome to the World of XAML'.
	xaml button 
		margin: 10;
		horizontalAlignment: #right;
		with: 'OK'. ]

what's better?
and that's only "wrapping" xaml... of course we can have something a lot better than just render xaml (like really composing objects)... but that was just an example :)


El 12/02/2011, a las 10:14a.m., Norbert Hartl escribió:

> On 12.02.2011, at 13:57, Esteban Lorenzano wrote:
>> I'm sorry but I disagree. 
>> XML as a meta-language is old, bad and shit.  
> If you say XML is no-go shouldn't you present an alternative at the same time?
> Norbert
>> 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.

More information about the Pharo-project mailing list