Why cant be both ? Why it has to be black and white ? What if we , I, someone does not like the design of a tool at a fundamental level ?
If you dont like a tool then you dont like a tool, its not as if the tool itself will be redesigned to fit your own needs . You have two choices a) suck it up and compromise with what you have b) suck it up go through the pain / pleasure of creating your own solution. One thing I learned with coding is that for other codes its usually "use the right tool for the right job" but for me is "the right tools for the right coder". "Personal Preferences" is the name of the game. Plus I disagree that without variation of effort we can have high quality tools. Take a look at the software landscape , there is extremely variation out there, why you think Pharo is immune to that ? On Fri, Dec 26, 2014 at 8:14 PM, Sven Van Caekenberghe <s...@stfx.eu> wrote: > > > On 26 Dec 2014, at 17:42, stepharo <steph...@free.fr> wrote: > > > > + 10000 > > > > Debugging the rendering loops of Athens was such an example. In Bloc I > get some race conditions with MC forked process... another fun one. > > Let people decide!!! > > > > Doru I DO NOT WANT TO LEARN WHAT I DO NOT WANT TO LEARN! > > I WANT to DECIDE WHEN. I control my agenda and my own schedule and my > list is huge. > > OK, I understand, but how is this different from any other radical changes > that we did ? > > When we introduced the Eye inspectors we did not offer two options at the > same time (and I can give 10s of examples). So what is best, we all > together use and make the best tools, or we all work with different tools ? > > > Stef > >> Doru, > >> > >> I think your intention is a good one but slightly misplaced. I really > like the idea of GTInspector. It surely is a great tool and maybe I'll > start to build my own inspector on my kind of things. > >> To me the difference is between "motivated to do" or "forced to do". > Most of the time we are trying hard to solve our own problems. If in that > progress other problems are forced upon us we get easily distracted and > frustrated. The same goes for new tools. If I'm forced to use these it just > means I have to deal with it first and only then I'm allowed to deal with > my own problem. As it was in that special case the bug in nautilus and the > new inspector made me shy away from developing something in 4.0 and now I'm > back on 3.0. > >> > >> So I think the only possibility is to "offer" a new way of doing things > and give people time to adjust. > >> > >> Norbert > >> > >>> Am 26.12.2014 um 13:18 schrieb Tudor Girba <tu...@tudorgirba.com>: > >>> > >>> 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" > >> > > > > >
