if I can say it, I think Spec has several design flaws, that prevent us to actually use it productively.
1st: I believe Spec is 80% of what Morphic should do by it self, but since is now that monster no body wants to take by the horns, Spec provides a layer. 2nd: The original idea of Spec is to produce composable objects that can be some-kind described and then reused by plugging them, but - is an idea that has a lot of sense is we have a UI builder… which we dont. 2 - the metadata itself is not very well defined (I would like something like the ones in VW and StX, but is like a weird array right now), because of this, Spec has created some “in the middle” way to define specs in a more “declarative way”, breaking the original design (the one I just pointed) 3rd: Frankly, with this “more declarative way” spec adopted more or less the same path glamour took. But if this is the point, glamour does a really better work on the “declarative” part. Of course, it does that at the cost of being less reusable, but well… we are talking about Spec, not Glaour here :) So, to summarise, IMHO: - Spec wouldn’t have much sense in a well-defined, clean, Morphic - Even as a layer, Spec still does not has much sense without: -- a rebuild of the descriptive model -- an UI builder to use it. cheers, Esteban > On 19 Dec 2014, at 17:32, nacho <0800na...@gmail.com> wrote: > > I too prefer Morphic over Spec. I find Spec too much verbose. And in fact, > Morphic as presented in the Self language it's a much modern approach to > building UIs than Spec which is pure code. So as complicated as it might > have become, I'm still attached to Morphic. > > > > > ----- > Nacho > Smalltalker apprentice. > Buenos Aires, Argentina. > -- > View this message in context: > http://forum.world.st/Question-about-Morphic-in-Pharo-4-tp4796331p4796449.html > Sent from the Pharo Smalltalk Users mailing list archive at Nabble.com. >
