jfabry wrote > as a user of the framework you should not really come in contact much.
Well the API is not bad (although it can seem a little heavy-weight when spiking to create a class, implement #defaultSpec, #initializeWidgets, #initializePresenter, etc). But as we know Smalltalk blurs the distinction between user and developer, and it's hard not to come in contact with the ugliness. When something doesn't work as expected, or when drilling down to see how existing tools work for inspiration, I've felt the internals as serious barriers to understanding. As I understood it, Spec was supposed to be a framework agnostic facade so one could describe once and e.g. deploy to both a js web UI and a Morphic desktop UI, so it's meaningless to compare Morphic to Spec. What could be cool is, if we agree that the Spec Model API is pretty cool (IMHO TextModel is much easier to work with than PluggableTextMorph to make e.g. a method editor with highlighting and completion), then to reimplement the Morphic widgets to use that API. Either way, since we control Spec and Morphic, it seems that we should agree on a satisfying API and use the same for both. I feel like that was a bit rambling so let me know if that didn't answer the question. ----- Cheers, Sean -- View this message in context: http://forum.world.st/Question-about-Morphic-in-Pharo-4-tp4796331p4796471.html Sent from the Pharo Smalltalk Users mailing list archive at Nabble.com.
