Peter:
I just wanted to let you know that when I discovered Oz, I had no doubt I
wanted to get involved in some significant way with its development. I want
to make the case to use it to power the engine for an expert system we will
be building, but before I bring it to the attention of management, I need to
make it "look" more like a serious Windows development tool. Mostly, it's
cosmetics, that's true, but if that's all it takes... ;)
However, the reason is also practical. What better way to learn/master how a
language works in terms of development workflow than to build a front end
for it?
Now the idea occurred to me that we could use Oz/Tk to build that interface,
a la Python's IDLE environment. I don't like that option because for
Windows, again, those Tk widgets just don't "look right" up against the
Delphi/C++ Builder's and Visual Studio's of the world, and the hundreds of
other Windows development tools that imitate them. I happen to like the
Delphi/C++ Builder look feel (and I'm pretty darn proficient at 'm), so I'd
be inclined to use that paradigm as a model: A top toolbar across the top,
floating tools and an editor (so you can see your desktop) -- vs. the clodgy
Multiple Document Interface of "traditional" (Microsoft-approved) Windows.
Somebody mentioned Komodo but I must confess, having tried the beta, I did
not like it. They seem to have gotten the skins working better than basic
editor features, and frankly I was not much impressed by it -- and I wanted
to be!
While Oz can interface to GUI toolkits, it's not a RAD GUI builder language.
Languages like Delphi or C++ Builder are better suited, it seems to me, for
that task (particularly for getting it done quickly on Windows (and, soon,
Linux)), and the only thing you loose is the sense that you bootstrapped
your IDE with your language, which is nice, but frankly matters less to
users than usability, familiarity with what they know, and performance. Mind
you, I think the portable GUI toolkits are essential to the language for
cross platform GUI development, but I do know that Windows developers like
to know that their IDE was built for Windows, even if the programs they are
building with it are not. Java is a good example: All those companies
rushing to build "100% Pure Java" IDE's (including my beloved Borland) are
finding out that users will only tolerate them if they aren't sacrificing
ease of use and raw speed. There is no really good reason to run the IDE
through an interpreter, other than to say you can, and if it can be done in
such a way that the users don't feel the difference, great. But if you want
the tool accepted on a given OS, that needs to be a longer term goal, not a
moral principle. The first goal should be ease of use and developer
acceptance, whatever the standards for acceptance are on a given platform.
This seems to me, at all events, a reasonable notion.
Anyway, thanks for the encouragement. Is there somewhere I can keep the code
for source control, or should I just use my own resources until I have
something worth sharing?
Sincerely,
Bob Calco
Centreville, Virginia, USA
rcalco@cortechs.com
> -----Original Message-----
> From: owner-oz-users@ps.uni-sb.de [mailto:owner-oz-users@ps.uni-sb.de]On
> Behalf Of Peter Van Roy
> Sent: Thursday, February 01, 2001 5:16 AM
> To: Bob Calco
> Cc: users@mozart-oz.org
> Subject: Re: [Oz] Oz vs. Squeak
>
>
>
> > As a corporate prisoner to the Windows operating system, I do find Emacs
> > conceptually interesting but not very productive as a development
> > environment. When you're used to Windows apps, Emacs' paradigm is a bit
> > disorienting. Plus, its windows implementation is pretty clunky. You can
> > always tell when Unix folks port programs to Windows that they have a
> > certain disdain for it, and that shows in the end product.
>
> Actually, it's not so much disdain as lack of manpower. E.g., I have the
> idea for a Mac port in the backburner, but it's on hold waiting for the
> right tools to appear in Mac OS X (graphics).
>
> > For Windows at
> > all events, I'm willing to build an IDE with all the bells and
> whistles that
> > developers on Windows are used to. While it wouldn't be cross
> platform as an
> > IDE, it would certainly highlight the strengths of Oz and minimize the
> > Unix-y aspects of Emacs that would turn a lot of Windows
> developers off. I
> > can also work on integrating Oz with COM and COM+, and
> eventually maybe even
> > .NET. I'd probably build the IDE in Delphi or C++ Builder, both
> of which are
> > being ported by Borland to Linux. They'll include a cross platform GUI
> > library, CLX, which means the code would compile as written on both
> > platforms, but for the time being the first Windows version of
> the IDE can
> > be a straight Windows implementation. I of course would provide
> the IDE free
> > with source for those who want it, and I can maintain a little "Windows"
> > corner of the website.
>
> That is absolutely great news and you're very welcome to do this.
>
> > BUT I need to get more familiar with Oz first (something I am
> determined to
> > do because I think it is a VERY promising language for longer
> term projects
> > I'm involved in)... and I'm in the middle of a development
> effort now that's
> > very intense, AND I'm (supposed to be) writing a book for Macmillan
> > Technical Publishing on Automated Software Testing... so give
> me some time
> > to get started.... any encouragement would be helpful in getting started
> > "sooner rather than later" though I get the feeling that I'm
> addressing a
> > crowd that's not exactly Windows-friendly... ;)
>
> > Someday, I'd like to be the "Wizard of Oz" on Windows... for what it's
> > worth. For an analogy, consider the work of Mark Hammond in the Python
> > (www.python.org) community. He works for ActiveState
> (www.activestate.com)
> > and is primarily responsible for extending Python on Windows to
> do things
> > like COM, ISAPI integration, and so on.
> >
> > Sincerely,
> >
> > Bob Calco
> > Centreville, Virginia, USA
> > rcalco@cortechs.com
>
> I'm pretty sure the other developers will agree with me to
> help you as much as we can, within our own time & knowledge
> constraints.
>
> Peter Van Roy
>
> -
> Please send submissions to users@mozart-oz.org
> and administriva mail to users-request@mozart-oz.org.
> The Mozart Oz web site is at http://www.mozart-oz.org/.
>
-
Please send submissions to users@mozart-oz.org
and administriva mail to users-request@mozart-oz.org.
The Mozart Oz web site is at http://www.mozart-oz.org/.