Hi,
Thanks for the link. For some strange reason, I do not see the linked email in
my inbox.
I am happy to hear that you could install GT.
> * The new interfaces and some demo of the graphical elements look
> pretty good
> * After just some operations including window resizing I just get the
> Red Window of Death [1](https://i.imgur.com/Cbx7uyH.png).
Indeed, that is a known problem:
https://github.com/feenkcom/gtoolkit/issues/64
> * I like the little triangles to expand thing in the document and the
> run buttons for embedded code, and the "embeddability" of elements
> in the document in a tree like fashion, which of course could lead
> to documents that embed pieces of documents, which embed pieces of
> documents… But the dual panel view of code in one side with
> results in the right panel of old GT didn't tend to create such
> "recursion". This dual modal view is the same of
> Atom[2](https://is.gd/kegaso) and CodiMD[3](https://is.gd/wudugi)
> for interactive documentation and I would like to see examples more
> in that line... but I don't know how it suits the philosophy behind
> Documenter, which seems more aligned to a modal non dual view of the
> document where you enter into edit mode once you click a piece of
> the document and into a view mode once you are out of it (instead of
> the proposed dual view). Would be nice to see is such dual view can
> be used to directly operate on the rendered view and see changes in
> the markup (i.e resizing an image in the rendered view changes the
> value on the edit view).
Interesting observation. The linked tools as all other notebook technologies I
saw rely on two distinct modes for edit and view that reside in two distinct
widgets (editor and viewer). They do that because they simply cannot have it in
one. Because of the design of Bloc we are not constrained to that. Instead, we
build a seamless interface that is both optimized for viewing, and for editing
with live preview that does not rely on an explicit render button. This
approach enables direct manipulation without friction, and we think this is a
significant advancement in this space.
About the remark related "to documents that embed pieces of documents, which
embed pieces of documents”: It is indeed possible to embed documents in
documents, but I am not sure I understand where you see the issue appearing.
Could you detail this part?
> * I like the different view that a document can have, markup wise:
> Pillar, Markdown, LaTeX, HTML, DeckJS AsciiDoc as is demoed in the
> authoring part [4](https://i.imgur.com/Jc1T5Rm.png).
Interestingly, those extensions exist in the old Inspector as well.
> * Its difficult to travel between the panels of a playground.
> Previously you just make click in the lower circle representing the
> panel you want to go at it was done
> [5](https://i.imgur.com/4CDAM2o.png), but now clicking on the upper
> rectangle representing such panel has no effect
> [6](https://i.imgur.com/8Obo3Ct.png).
For now, you have to rely on horizontal scrolling using a trackpad or mouse.
Alternatively, Shift+scroll should also work. The upper part is not yet ready.
> * Auto-completion and shortcuts for selecting text doesn't work well
> on code cells of the new playground. Selecting whole words with Ctrl
> arrow doesn't work, neither using down arrows to choose from
> suggestions and even you can end with previous suggestions floating
> around your playground [7](https://i.imgur.com/4awyIft.png)
> [8](https://i.imgur.com/7qXc64b.png).
Indeed. These are known issues that we will tackle soon.
> * The default data science example didn't work at all
> [8](https://i.imgur.com/YhNb8el.png)
Nice catch. Thanks. The path of the file is incorrect when the image is copied.
>> Now, a clarification. The old GT was produced over a period of 4 years
>> by an open-source team. The project had its own identity, and in 2014
>> the core of it was first integrated in Pharo. I say the core of it,
>> because the visual part and other libraries are not in Pharo today.
>>
>> The full potential is found in Moose. In any case, during this
>> process, GT got to be identified with Pharo and that was a good thing.
>> The new GT is a product produced by feenk, a company. Much of the
>> original team is still active in the new version, but now we commit to
>> our product in a different way. The product is free and open-source,
>> but it’s still a product with an identity and a goal. At present time,
>> both the team, identity and goal are different than those of Pharo.
>>
>> Our goal is to offer a fundamentally new alternative to program
>> (including comparing to what is possible now in Pharo). We are not
>> looking for marginal improvements, and we are not aiming at backward
>> compatibility.
> I used Moose to build the first Grafoscopio
