I wanted to say that I also like more the distribution that Esteban built instead of the original one of GT Debugger. So.. +1 for that.
And yes, I also like the text besides the buttons since unfortunately the buttons are not extremely intuitive. +1 for that too. Stef, as for the bydecode debugger, if I remember, you had to explicitly switch to a bytecode debugger. In the normal debugger a normal user will use, the bytecode pane was not there. On Sat, Jan 9, 2016 at 11:08 AM, Dimitris Chloupis <kilon.al...@gmail.com> wrote: > Dont do it for me , what I did with ChronosManager is only the tip of the > iceberg, I will be redesigning the whole Pharo GUI from scratch. After I > release ChronosManager 0.2 my next victim will be Nautilus, then inspector > and finally debugger. So I will be building my own GUI for the debugger > anyway, in similar style to ChronosManager, completely custom made , static > and icon based. It wont happen tommorow but slowly and steadily I will > make my own Pharo GUI, obviously radically different to what we have now. > > I merely mentioned this to represent a voice of reason over icon based > interfaces that dominate software market anyway. > > On Sat, Jan 9, 2016 at 3:49 PM Christophe Demarey < > christophe.dema...@inria.fr> wrote: > >> Hi, >> >> It is impossible to satisfy everyone. >> What I would suggest is to have text + icons as default and a preference >> to only have icons. >> >> Christophe >> >> Le 9 janv. 2016 à 14:30, Dimitris Chloupis a écrit : >> >> Which brings us to my question, where did tooltips go ? Squeak had them >> and then they were gone in pharo. >> >> Personally I dont see the point of having an icon to have text next to >> it. Seriously how much time it takes you to learn what each icon does ? >> >> and the debugger is not exactly a tool you will be using once per month, >> so the chance of forgeting gets pretty low after the first week. >> >> So my vote goes to get rid of text, it wastes valuable gui space in an >> environment where windows fight for space. And even on my 27'' monitor I >> rather have as compact as possible GUI. >> >> On Sat, Jan 9, 2016 at 3:05 PM stepharo <steph...@free.fr> wrote: >> >> >>> >>> Le 9/1/16 11:01, Esteban Lorenzano a écrit : >>> >>> again re-send because of exceed limits with the image (that’s new?) >>> >>> with a small tweak, texts (AND icons :P): >>> >>> >>> And text. I asked that during two years in GT but I was told it was not >>> possible. >>> Like that I do not have to learn these icons >>> What is the Where is? >>> >> >>> >>> >>> <Pièce jointe Mail.png> >>> >>> >>> would that be aceptable for you? >>> >>> cheers! >>> Esteban >>> >>> >>> On 09 Jan 2016, at 09:43, Esteban Lorenzano <esteba...@gmail.com> wrote: >>> >>> (re-send because I exceeded limit.) >>> >>> Hi, >>> >>> let’s think positive. >>> the GTDebugger is a step forward… it allow a lot of better interactions >>> and of course, it needs some iterations to make it appealing to everybody. >>> For instance, I took me 2’ to tweak the debugger presentation and to get >>> this: >>> >>> <Screen Shot 2016-01-09 at 09.29.59.png> >>> >>> (I changed all available… is a trivial task) >>> >>> and like IMO feels a lot better… and I think is a good compromise >>> between the old and the new. >>> Reasons to suggest this approach: >>> >>> - it keeps old approach who(I think) was good (I can see the stack, and >>> the flow feels natural from top to down) >>> - it preserves “the important” (the code) as central. >>> - it gives space for adding columns (like the bytecode). >>> >>> Now… I can understand you want icons with text, and that can be hacked >>> too… >>> >>> So… can we have an agreement? >>> >>> Esteban >>> >>> ps: btw… using GT with Fast Table we can also avoid those annoying >>> paginated lists too >>> >>> On 09 Jan 2016, at 08:53, stepharo <steph...@free.fr> wrote: >>> >>> Thanks for your testimony. >>> >>> I'm not against GTDebugger per se. I believe that we should have better >>> tools >>> but we should take time for building better tools (even if this is two >>> years that moosers use or not this new debugger). >>> I would appreciate a process where users can give real feedback and we >>> can simplify/shape our tools nicely. >>> >>> Now for the mooc I will not present GTDebugger. So students will not use >>> Pharo 50 >>> >>> Stef >>> >>> Le 08/01/2016 21:22, stepharo a écrit : >>> >>> I'm sorry but this debugger should not be the default one. >>> MONDAY we are filming our mooc and we have to explain the debugger and >>> personally I do not see the gain: >>> - It looks a lot more complex to me and I do not want to have to >>> redo all the screenshots >>> of our lecture. >>> - Just that I have to learn the meaning of small icons. >>> - Why do we need a special pane for the evaluator >>> - Why there is a type column. >>> - Sorry but I'm not convinced about the moldable aspect behind the >>> story (no need to argue I know it) >>> >>> I would like to avoid to be forced to use not the latest version of >>> Pharo for the mooc. >>> >>> Such changes are arriving far too late in the release. We do not change >>> the debugger itself the day of code freeze. >>> >>> We decided that the GTDebugger can be included but to me it never meant >>> that it should be the default one. >>> I think that experts can choose the debugger they want. The newbies >>> don't. >>> >>> Stef >>> >>> >>> IMO the old debugger is way more intuitive. >>> When I used the debugger of Eclipse for java I was lost. When I used >>> Spec debugger I thought "Oh, this is not so hard in fact". And I lose >>> the feeling with GTDebugger. And the debugger is one of the main source >>> of interest for newbies. >>> >>> Maybe we could have a button on the spec Debugger "Switch to GTDebugger"? >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> -- Mariano http://marianopeck.wordpress.com
