31–40 of 73 posts
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Is it just me or does it come off as super condescending? I feel that, if you can't explain to us concisely what the thing you've been working on for decades is about, that's a huge red flag. The most I can tell you after reading this page: it has something to do with software development, and my inclination to explore further is zero.
Sometimes it’s just hard to explain something concisely when it’s both rapidly evolving and different from people’s assumptions. In 1992 it was quite hard to explain what the Internet is. Is it a protocol? Yes, a whole bunch of them actually. Is it yet another email system? Yes, among other things. Is it like a forum? Yes, there’s Usenet, but you can also use that from BBS’s that are not really part of “the Internet”…
It was easy to describe - a way for humans and computers to communicate. For me it was 99% Newsgroups and FTP. [1]. People shrug and move on. Most don't get it. It's years later that it's commercially available, with software built into the OS (win 95). And then it was using the Web, NNTP and FTP are more-or-less obsolete now.
But the Internet is still the same - a way for humans and computers to communicate with each other.
[1] I downloaded world data via FTP from the CIA, and someone at JPL answered a newsgroup post I wrote. Mind literally blown.
OK, having watched the video at https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lqogvp1dGpk (8 minutes, so 4 minutes if you 2x it) I understand why they have such a hard time answering the question "What is Glamorous Toolkit?" It's effectively a combination of a Smalltalk IDE, a Jupyter/Observable-style notebook environment and a tool somewhat like R Studio. It's a hard thing to categorize, because it's not exactly the same kind of…
solution formula: talk to your users, write down the words they use, explain it back to them using their own words
Sometimes, it's also a good idea to help educate the user.
Only problem is, I absolutely hate the GNOMEsque aesthetic.
Can't seem to find any info on changing its appearance. Of course it should be possible given the nature of the platform, but it really is offputting. The soft-corners and hamburger menu aesthetic really does not communicate what a powerful platform this is, and not being able to change it easily is really offputting.
I tried for an hour to set this up once. The docs were all over the place, you needed prerequisites that were hard to find and linked to 404s. Mysterious errors. Eventually my curiosity was overcome and I gave up.
Are you saying you want to compile it from source, or are you unaware that there's binaries available?
OK, this is amazing, I was just thinking through on what to base a project that's been brewing in my head for weeks. This might do nicely. Only problem is, I absolutely hate the GNOMEsque aesthetic. Can't seem to find any info on changing its appearance. Of course it should be possible given the nature of the platform, but it really is offputting. The soft-corners and hamburger menu aesthetic really does not communic…
OK, having watched the video at https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lqogvp1dGpk (8 minutes, so 4 minutes if you 2x it) I understand why they have such a hard time answering the question "What is Glamorous Toolkit?" It's effectively a combination of a Smalltalk IDE, a Jupyter/Observable-style notebook environment and a tool somewhat like R Studio. It's a hard thing to categorize, because it's not exactly the same kind of…
Datasette is awesome btw
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Sometimes it’s just hard to explain something concisely when it’s both rapidly evolving and different from people’s assumptions. In 1992 it was quite hard to explain what the Internet is. Is it a protocol? Yes, a whole bunch of them actually. Is it yet another email system? Yes, among other things. Is it like a forum? Yes, there’s Usenet, but you can also use that from BBS’s that are not really part of “the Internet”…
the internet had 7M users in 1992 http://stats.areppim.com/stats/stats_internetxfcstx2008.htm
Those were commonly available via BBS’s and (in the case of email) via corporate systems, but it didn’t mean you had any ability to make IP connections yourself.
The first time I paid for dial-up Internet was 1993, I think. It was a very cheap provider. You’d dial to their Unix box with a terminal emulator, like a BBS.
Turned out the price was so cheap because they didn’t allow foreign IP connections at all! I could use IRC and connect to local ftp servers within my small European country, but that was basically it. I knew a bunch of people who were IRC addicts and this kind of local access was perfect for them, but I found it useless.
Did I have Internet access then? Technically I could use all the protocols. In practice it wasn’t really the Internet when connections to other countries just fail. The point I’m trying to make here is that “Internet access” in 1992 meant a lot of different things on a scale that doesn’t exist anymore.
What's more interesting to me is the fact that the Glamorous Toolkit UI looks perfectly crisp on my M1 MacBook screen, whereas the Pharo IDE is a blurry mess because it doesn't support "retina" screens. If GT is built on top of Pharo, then why does Pharo still not support high DPI screens?