On 4 April 2016 at 17:03, Thierry Goubier <thierry.goub...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > > 2016-04-04 15:49 GMT+02:00 Igor Stasenko <siguc...@gmail.com>: > >> >> >> On 4 April 2016 at 16:32, Thierry Goubier <thierry.goub...@gmail.com> >> wrote: >> >>> >>> >>> 2016-04-04 15:23 GMT+02:00 Igor Stasenko <siguc...@gmail.com>: >>> >>>> >>>> >>>>> Analogies don't work. Right :) I never used Pillar and have remote >>>> ideas about what it does or requires. From that perspective you appeal to >>>> wrong person. On your place i would be asking a guy who knows Pillar >>>> innards about it. >>>> Forgive my ignorance.. but i am not omniscient. >>>> >>> >>> False humility doesn't work there, Igor :) >>> >> >> But i don't know what Pillar is. Never used it. I'm not lying here. I >> seen people doing something with it time to time.. but never got my eyes on >> it. >> Or would you prefer that i would pretend that i know something and can >> continue discussion about things related to it? Waving hands, pointing to >> milestones, drawing diagrams? :) >> > > Yes, diagrams :) Ok, I don't know that much Pillar in details myself; > except as one of those things where some of your characters in the text are > used to build a layout on a target. > > >> >>> >>> >>>> >>>> >>>>> Second is: Pharo (and all smalltalks) is the place where supposedly >>>>> impossible stuff can be developed, simply because it takes far less lines >>>>> than anywhere else. No guarantees, but, at the rate we're dropping >>>>> projects >>>>> by the side of the road (and reinventing stuff multiple times over), we >>>>> have manpower to spare :) >>>>> >>>>> But that is orthogonal. It is possible to do anything on >>>> turing-complete environment. Taking shortcuts etc etc yadda yadda. Now do >>>> such statements alone can bring us anywhere closer to grand goals and grand >>>> projects? >>>> Nope. Only hard day to day work could bring us there.. Not talks about >>>> how cool we are. >>>> >>> >>> Hard day to day work, yes. But if you make it that uninteresting, yes, >>> I'm sure we will never get there :) >>> >>> Okay, let me elaborate what was the whole point behind TxText project. >> It was part of work we were doing to migrate from old Canvas & BitBlt >> Morphic rendering towards vector-based rendering using Athens. Basically in >> a nutshell TxText is a model and rendering engine for text rendering. >> > > I'd say it is more: it is an interactive model for text editing and > rendering. How much of it is "interactive" by opposition to pure rendering? > Can they be easily separated? > Well, there is a model, TxModel, which is domain-based. Means it is abstract and agnostic from any kind of rendering engine or UI. It represents an object that contains text and allows certain operation on it, like selection, deletion, insertion etc. And rendering engine bridges that model with morphic and athens. It cannot be separated, since it implies using such model for computing layout, and implies to use Athens for rendering.. And implies to exist in Morphic (or some other kind of UI environment) for UI interaction, to be represented as a widget on screen and receive events and mouse/keyboard input etc. So, what kind of separation you trying to see there? > > >> Does it means it can serve as a base of full-fledged word processing >> software in a future? Sure thing. Why not? >> > > Ok. > > >> But does it means i should care or have interest in pursuing that >> direction? No. It is not on my radar and not among my interests. >> > > You made that point clear :) > > Regards, > > Thierry > -- Best regards, Igor Stasenko.
