+1 Remember that “old” also means that it stands the test of time
We need to be careful while innovating with the basics (workspace, inspecting, navigating code and debugging) because that impacts the whole economy of using this technology. Make productivity go up, never down! One additional click doesn’t sound like a lot but if that happens for something that you do 400 times a day is ~8000 times a month or ~60 minutes of clicking like crazy with overhead you didn’t have before. UX is King. No way back from that, it really rules (the only thing we have in control is what kingdom will we invent for it to rule) > On Dec 26, 2014, at 2:42 PM, 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. > > > 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 >>> <mailto: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 >>> <mailto: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 <http://www.tudorgirba.com/> >>> >>> "Every thing has its own flow" >> >
