Archaeopteryx Software, Inc.
Take Flight!Search

Home
Wing IDE
News
Support
About Us
Python
Open Source
Store

 Search:
 
 Advanced Search




[wingide-users] requested features survey

ken@kenkinder.com ken@kenkinder.com
Mon, 21 Jan 2002 03:18:05 -0500


The debugging stuff is interesting, but out of my league. ;) Changing
inline would be cool, but it boggles my mind so I'll move on.

Honestly? Something a bit simpler? I could really go for tool tips
that just remind you of what the function arguments are. :)

On the topic of GUI prototyping, I say just go for a Delphi/Glade
type of gizmo. What's important to me is that it takes very little
time to get things up and running -- like in Delphi you can just
double-click on a widget and be editing its events -- Glade is a
little on the complex side if you ask me.

Also, I would prefer to just use PyGTK directly. Last time I used
wxWindows and wxPython, it didn't seem to work reliably all the time
and frankly, the more libraries and wrappers of libraries between
my program and the user, the more resources it'll take.

I'd go for simple.

2 cents.

On Sun, Jan 20, 2002 at 10:47:05PM -0500, Steven D. Arnold wrote:
> It's a cool idea for Archaeopteryx to have a survey on requested
> features for Wing.  The GUI builder was the most requested feature at
> the time I took the survey; it was one of my votes as well.  I'd like
> to tell you what I'd most like to see in Wing, then I have some
> comments on a possible GUI builder piece.
> 
> In terms of most desired features, the main point of a debugger is to
> help clear problems in one's code.  I believe this is best
> accomplished by shortening the view-alter-test cycle.  That is, a bug
> arises; I debug the program and view/test the code to see where a
> problem is arising.  I then alter the code.  I then test again to see
> if the problem was fixed.
> 
> If I could modify a function inline in Wing, and then see immediately
> what the output would look like without having to restart the
> debugger, that would be cool.  Think of it as a combination of editing
> code and debugging at the same time -- mix the writing of code and the
> debugging of code into a single action.  I might prime a function with
> certain values, and as I write the function, as I enter each line,
> Wing would show me what the values would currently be.  If my
> function calls other functions, if I don't actually want to call those
> functions, I could prime the return values as well with arbitrary
> data -- this would be especially useful for database calls.  I've
> never heard of this being done before, but I think it'd be a really
> cool idea and it'd move debugging forward a lot.  I could set up a
> suite of different input values, which would become the basis of my
> regression tests for the function.  Then I could just select one set of
> input values or another, and see what the function is doing with those
> values at any point, or just see what the return value would be.
> 
> I think something like that would make code-writing much faster and it
> would eliminate a lot of bugs before they ever got written; as such it
> would save an enormous amount of debugging time.
> 
> On the subject of GUIs, probably one of the most basic design
> principles should be that the GUI should be capable and
> cross-platform.  Cross-platform is obvious; capable means we are not
> hemmed in to just a few widgets or too dependent on a single widget
> provider.  I also don't like depending on another language such as TCL,
> so if you agree with me about that then that rules out TK.  GTK, while
> technically cross-platform, seems relatively weak/unsupported on
> Windows; I don't think it's a strong contender, but I admit I'm not an
> expert on the latest developments in that area.  wxWindows seems like
> the most obvious GUI to support.
> 
> I've learned, however, that it's good not to mix action with
> presentation.  That is, it's good to separate the stuff that presents
> the user interface with the stuff that acts on it.  A good example is
> HTML.  When writing a web app, it's better not to embed the HTML
> directly in code.  It's often more convenient to use an ASP-like
> model, where the page is basically an HTML file with code embedded in
> the file as needed.  Even in that model, it's best to keep as much
> code as possible in external modules.  If this is done, the interface
> can be handled separately from the code that manipulates the
> interface.  It maximizes the modularity and reusability of your code
> as well as your interface.
> 
> Unfortunately, wxWindows and most other GUIs force you to mix
> interface and code a lot.  You can't just "represent" a wxWindows
> interface and have some tool that will render that interface into an
> actual application, using backend code that you provide.  The
> interface code is intertwined with your backend code.  So to change
> the interface you have to be a skillful wxWindows programmer, not just
> a web-designer type.
> 
> XUL is a markup language that is used with Mozilla.  It is somewhat
> like HTML but far more powerful in terms of the user interface it can
> provide; all of the Mozilla application itself is rendered using XUL,
> so that means if Mozilla can do it, XUL can do it.  It's as
> cross-platform as Mozilla itself, which is to say, very cross
> platform.  It's as stable and reliable as Mozilla, which in the latest
> releases is quite good and getting better.  It very effectively
> achieves separation of code and interface, separation between things
> that describe and things that do.  It is not limited to the default
> widgets that come with XUL; very complicated new XUL widgets have been
> developed and are actually relatively easy to develop.  For example,
> someone created a XUL widget that actually plays the Minesweeper game!
> If you can create such a widget in XUL, you can create a widget that
> looks and feels virtually any way you want.
> 
> I would suggest taking a close look at supporting XUL in the GUI
> builder.  With proper modular design, it should be possible,
> eventually, to support other GUI systems as well.  But of GUI systems
> that meet the basic design principles, I think XUL is a strong
> contender -- indeed, in my mind, the strongest contender.
> 
> Long post; if you've gotten this far, thanks for reading. :-)
> 
> -------------------------------------------------------------- 
> Steven D. Arnold                                    Neosynapse
> stevena@neosynapse.net                        Managing Partner
> AIM: abraxan                       MSN: neosynapse@hotmail.com
> 
> 
> _________________________________________________
> Archaeopteryx Software, Inc.
> Wing IDE discussion list
> http://archaeopteryx.com/support/forum





Run by Mailman v 2.0.8


Copyright (c) 2000-2002, Archaeopteryx Software, Inc.
Legal Statements