Thanks, Alex. I showed the above demo to non-Smalltalk developers with the idea of positioning Pharo/Moose as a one-stop-tool-for-all-sorts-of-analyses (I also showed them file manipulation). By the look in their eyes (they know the real pain of having poor and incomplete tools), I am pretty convinced that this is a significant opportunity that Pharo should take.
Doru On Sat, Mar 8, 2014 at 1:13 PM, Alexandre Bergel <alexandre.ber...@me.com>wrote: > Indeed having particular views is only one (minor) aspect. The coding and > navigation flow GTTools offers is fantastic. > I am not a big fan of Glamour scripting language, but what is built on top > of it is remarkable. It may even be a killing app for Pharo. > > Alexandre > > Le 08-03-2014 à 4:16, Tudor Girba <tu...@tudorgirba.com> a écrit : > > I hope not. What are we trying to optimize? > > If you look closely at the GT work, you might notice that it is not just a > tool, it's a whole new philosophy for coding. The EyeInspector picked only > one aspect out of a whole. > > One high goal is to change programming such that the inspector + debugger > to capture most of the coding experience. This is what live means. Right > now, in the default Pharo we only code small things in the debugger and > nothing in the inspector. We work on the idea of a moldable IDE that will > change all that. > > Let's look at some facts. Right now, in my image I have 75 different > extensions for GTInspector. And the total amount of lines of code has > barely passed 1000 LOC (including all utility code). These are not just > independent views, but they are combinable. The amount of use cases > supported span a wide range: querying source code, visualizing performance, > navigating file system, querying DB, and more (read the posts from > humane-assessment.com for hints in this direction). > > We programmed most of these extensions from within the inspector both > because it's fun and because it's significantly more productive. And I am > not the only one. This power is not serendipity, it's by design. And we > only started to untap this potential. > > There is still a long way for the concept of inspector and I believe there > is a large payoff in it, too. > > Optimizing for a small thing now should not be the way to go :) > > Cheers, > Doru > > > > > On Fri, Mar 7, 2014 at 11:23 PM, Sven Van Caekenberghe <s...@stfx.eu>wrote: > >> Well I would hope that some kind of convergence would be possible in the >> future. Maybe some kind of abstract meta description like magritte, that >> different tools can use. >> >> On 07 Mar 2014, at 16:43, Yuriy Tymchuk <yuriy.tymc...@me.com> wrote: >> >> > Hi everyone. >> > >> > This day I've attended Moose dojo and I'm pretty impressed with the >> possibilities of GTInspector. The one thing that I've noticed is that both >> GTInspactor and EyeInspector support custom inspections for objects. I'm >> wandering if we can come up with a common protocol to give an object >> specific infector view, and not develop a separate thing for each inspector. >> > >> > Uko >> >> >> > > > -- > www.tudorgirba.com > > "Every thing has its own flow" > > -- www.tudorgirba.com "Every thing has its own flow"
