xml is good a simple interexchange format.
Now when you have you xml stream you have to map your nodes (different to
objects)
so for UISPec you can just get a parser and object builder for free. NO need to
load XMLSupport.
read my VW examples to understand.
In VW you can click on a button and see the spec or see the rendering of the
spec in your code pane
and this is just based on spec objects that are stored in arrays.
Simple!
This is not because the world does not have a nice synatx with can be used to
get xml description that we
should use xml everywhere.
(Book
title: 'Zorro';
year: 1969;
pages: 230)
Is better than
<xml
tage
\xml>
why because I can do doit and get a book object on the first expression with
the second I have to
do XMLDomParser on ::....
parse.....
map to books.....
I know I'm saving some of my projects in XML and mapping is boring.
Stef
On Feb 12, 2011, at 7:13 PM, Esteban Lorenzano wrote:
> No, I don't believe anything except smalltalk is bad. Just XML. I worked with
> Java, C# and a lot of XML to know that.
> Don't be confused... I'm not talking against XML alternatives because of
> microsoft or anything, I have serious technical complains against it. Also,
> XUL is not microsoft's and I'm opposing to it as strongly as XAML (but
> Seaside-XUL is cool, he).
>
> Said so... i'm not against build an XAML importer or so, but I think you'll
> find a lot of several issues to solve, and it will maybe impossible :)
>
> <Spanish here> (yeah... bad joke)
> Además... no lo defiendo porque crea que Smalltalk es mejor siempre, solo que
> en este caso, es mucho mejor que usar XML.
> Trabajo en la industria desde hace 18 años y solo hace 4 con Smalltalk, y
> además todavía hoy trabajo haciendo consultoría de arquitectura de proyectos
> hechos en Java o C#... se perfectamente de que estoy hablando... no estoy en
> contra ni de Oracle ni de Microsoft... simplemente, creo que usar XML es una
> mala alternativa, no te vayas por las ramas, plis :)
> </Spanish here>
>
> Cheers,
> Esteban
>
> El 12/02/2011, a las 2:59p.m., nullPointer escribió:
>
>>
>> Create the UI with plain Smalltalk code have problems... my UIBuilder use
>> that system and have limitations for limit of lityerals in a spec method,
>> and other problems.
>>
>> Another alternative is the VW or Smalltalk/X mechanism, no readable, no
>> updatable; only could be modified for the same designer routine.
>>
>> XAML is a standard (or XUL). Allow define the UI, but too allow define
>> bindings, templates, commands etc for work with the
>> controller/presenter/viewmodel. For do the same in any language, with plain
>> code, you need much more code lines. A example with only a textbox and a
>> label don´t works. Try build a view with three grids, many fields, bindings,
>> events, tranmsformations, styles... and then compare the number of code
>> lines from a way and another. And compare too the readable result...!!!
>>
>> And is possible create it with external designers; a Smalltalk designer is
>> not needed. Only a XAML reader-builder is needed, and a set of widgets for
>> work of that way.
>>
>> Ahhhhh! I see the problem!!!. Now I see. It´s a Microsoft product, then
>> anyway is bad.
>>
>> Los programadores de Smalltalk, somos cangrejos ermitaños. Estamos tan
>> acostumbrados a pensar que somos lo mejor y tenemos la mejor herramienta que
>> nos hemos quedado anquilosados. Estoy hasta las pelotas de esta mentalidad.
>> Lo digo en castellano porque no sé expresarlo en inglés.
>>
>> Regards.
>> --
>> View this message in context:
>> http://forum.world.st/A-new-GUI-visual-designer-tp3067111p3302962.html
>> Sent from the Pharo Smalltalk mailing list archive at Nabble.com.
>>
>
>
