Hi Sven, I concur with this point of view.
Cheers, Doru On Fri, Dec 26, 2014 at 2:14 PM, Sven Van Caekenberghe <s...@stfx.eu> wrote: > Yes, we did not have this choice problem when the eye inspectors were > introduced. > > I am against going along two paths. > > GT's main goal is easy customisation, we (together) must find ways to make > this the best inspector possible, and that can only happen by actually > using it. > > Everyone who is not happy should continue to voice their opinion. The > discussion should be constructive and informed - which also means that > everyone should give the new tools a fair chance. > > And I fully agree with the 'emergency inspector' idea. > > > On 26 Dec 2014, at 13:18, Tudor Girba <tu...@tudorgirba.com> wrote: > > > > Hi, > > > > I think there must be a misunderstanding. > > > > There can be a good reason for having a basic inspector around, but I > think the reason is not because people cannot choose what to use. > > > > There is a toggle to enable/disable the GTInspector. But, even without > it, the main feature of the GTInspector is exactly to be extended the way > people want and not impose a fixed way. This is completely different from > what existed before. In fact, half a year ago there was no problem that > people could neither choose nor extend anything. In the meantime, we can > extend our workflows significantly. Adding the various flavors of browsing > objects is perhaps a couple of lines long and each of us can tweak it > because there is no higher entity that should decide anymore. > > > > What I cannot quite grasp is that while we pride ourselves with working > on a reflective language, when we have reflective tools, we seem to not be > able to take half an hour to build the tool that fits our needs. I am > still wondering what is needed to improve this. I think that it's a problem > of exercise or of communication, but it seems that just providing the > examples that I linked before is not enough and most people look at the > inspector still as a black box tool. I will try to work on a tutorial to > see if it gets better, but do you find the moldability proposition not > valuable or just unclear? > > > > But, as I said, there can still be a valid reason to enable a basic > inspector that relies on a minimal of libraries (so, definitely not the > Spec one) for the same reason we have an emergency debugger. > > > > Cheers, > > Doru > > > > > > On Thu, Dec 25, 2014 at 11:43 AM, stepharo <steph...@free.fr> wrote: > > I will add basicInspect in Object so that we can get access to the old > inspector. > > I like that people can choose their tools! > > I mentioned that 20 times but people do not care apparently. > > > > Stef > > > > Le 23/12/14 11:50, Norbert Hartl a écrit : > > > > Is there a way to get the old tools via shortcut? > > > > I started something new with pharo 4.0 today. I discovered a bug in > Nautilus where every rename or deletion of a method raises a debugger. I > tried finding the bug but struggled because to me the new inspector is > really confusing. If I "just" want to unfold a few levels of references to > get a glimpse of the structure the new tool prevents me from doing that. > There is just to much information in this window and too much happening to > me. > > To me it looks like a power tool you need to get used to. So it is > probably not the best tool for simple tasks and people new to this > environment might be overwhelmed. At least I would like to be able to use > the old tools. > > > > Norbert > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > -- > > www.tudorgirba.com > > > > "Every thing has its own flow" > > > -- www.tudorgirba.com "Every thing has its own flow"
