I know this is a FAQ, but I still don't have any answers, at least
answers that I like.
But let me ask it in the most vulgar way possible, with blunt
observations:
Where's the GUI?
* McCLIM is a wart. If someone honestly thinks I should pursue this,
I'm all ears. Otherwise, it is slow, incompatible with today's GUI
standards, and too big for its own good. I mean, it takes five minutes
to start up the demodemo.
* A lisp-qt thingy would be ideal for me, since I love Qt. If someone
has some ideas, then I am open. I looked at the CFFI-Qt attempt over
at Sourceforge (lcq I think it is called) and it seg faults on me. I
don't know how to approach seg faults in lisp. If someone has this
working, a tutorial would be very nice.
* I have a bias against Gtk. I think it stinks. But I am open if
someone says that this is the best way to go, I'll give Gtk another
chance.
* I took a passing look at Cello, but it seems to be almost 2 years
since anyone has done anything on it. I'll give it another chance if
someone says it's worth the time. Cello seems to be the right way to
go based on its mission statement. After all, you aren't confined to C
(Gtk) or C++ (Qt) when you code in lisp, so you don't have to limit
yourself to their conventions. A "Getting Started" guide for a newbie
like me that is still experiencing the thrill of discovering things
like multiple return values would be nice.
I am totally opposed to closed source or restrictive licenses. I have
just had too many good experiences dealing with the licensing issues
of GPL/BSD/MIT/Perl/etc... licensed code, at both work and play, to
give any other type of license a fair shake. If I can't legally look
inside, modify, and share it with people openly, I don't want to touch
it.
Finally, I think there are far too few evangelists in the lisp world.
(There are plenty of lisp evangelists outside of the lisp world,
though.) If you do something a certain way, don't be ashamed of
standing up and telling people that your way is the right way. When I
am learning the ropes, it is so much easier to simply rely on someone
else's experience, even if ultimately I will discover it is flawed. If
you really like your way of doing GUIs in lisp, by all means, be proud
and let me know.
On 1 Apr, 19:23, Jonathan Gardner <········@jonathangardner.net>
wrote:
> I know this is a FAQ, but I still don't have any answers, at least
> answers that I like.
>
> But let me ask it in the most vulgar way possible, with blunt
> observations:
>
> Where's the GUI?
>
> * McCLIM is a wart. If someone honestly thinks I should pursue this,
> I'm all ears. Otherwise, it is slow, incompatible with today's GUI
> standards, and too big for its own good. I mean, it takes five minutes
> to start up the demodemo.
>
> * A lisp-qt thingy would be ideal for me, since I love Qt. If someone
> has some ideas, then I am open. I looked at the CFFI-Qt attempt over
> at Sourceforge (lcq I think it is called) and it seg faults on me. I
> don't know how to approach seg faults in lisp. If someone has this
> working, a tutorial would be very nice.
>
> * I have a bias against Gtk. I think it stinks. But I am open if
> someone says that this is the best way to go, I'll give Gtk another
> chance.
>
> * I took a passing look at Cello, but it seems to be almost 2 years
> since anyone has done anything on it. I'll give it another chance if
> someone says it's worth the time. Cello seems to be the right way to
> go based on its mission statement. After all, you aren't confined to C
> (Gtk) or C++ (Qt) when you code in lisp, so you don't have to limit
> yourself to their conventions. A "Getting Started" guide for a newbie
> like me that is still experiencing the thrill of discovering things
> like multiple return values would be nice.
There's also celtk and cells-gtk. I've recently added an expander
widget
to celtk a version of which is maintained at gitorious
http://gitorious.org/projects/celtk
and cells-gtk has recently undergone a bit of a facelift too. None of
these are the finished article but there are a few of us having fun
with
it. If you fancy getting in at the beginning of a revolutionary
project,
this is where to be.
I think you've also heard Kenny and I talking about a web front end to
this stuff. One avenue for development here would be to embed a
browser's
rendering engine into a tk/gtk window. We already have the
code to generate the html, all we need is to write the tk extension
and
we have ourselves a lisp/tk version of Adobe AIR.
See recent discussions on the cells mailing list for more info on
this.
--
Andy
Andy Chambers wrote:
> On 1 Apr, 19:23, Jonathan Gardner <········@jonathangardner.net>
> wrote:
>
>>I know this is a FAQ, but I still don't have any answers, at least
>>answers that I like.
>>
>>But let me ask it in the most vulgar way possible, with blunt
>>observations:
>>
>>Where's the GUI?
>>
>>* McCLIM is a wart. If someone honestly thinks I should pursue this,
>>I'm all ears. Otherwise, it is slow, incompatible with today's GUI
>>standards, and too big for its own good. I mean, it takes five minutes
>>to start up the demodemo.
>>
>>* A lisp-qt thingy would be ideal for me, since I love Qt. If someone
>>has some ideas, then I am open. I looked at the CFFI-Qt attempt over
>>at Sourceforge (lcq I think it is called) and it seg faults on me. I
>>don't know how to approach seg faults in lisp. If someone has this
>>working, a tutorial would be very nice.
>>
>>* I have a bias against Gtk. I think it stinks. But I am open if
>>someone says that this is the best way to go, I'll give Gtk another
>>chance.
>>
>>* I took a passing look at Cello, but it seems to be almost 2 years
>>since anyone has done anything on it. I'll give it another chance if
>>someone says it's worth the time. Cello seems to be the right way to
>>go based on its mission statement. After all, you aren't confined to C
>>(Gtk) or C++ (Qt) when you code in lisp, so you don't have to limit
>>yourself to their conventions. A "Getting Started" guide for a newbie
>>like me that is still experiencing the thrill of discovering things
>>like multiple return values would be nice.
>
>
> There's also celtk and cells-gtk. I've recently added an expander
> widget
> to celtk a version of which is maintained at gitorious
>
> http://gitorious.org/projects/celtk
>
> and cells-gtk has recently undergone a bit of a facelift too. None of
> these are the finished article but there are a few of us having fun
> with
> it. If you fancy getting in at the beginning of a revolutionary
> project,
> this is where to be.
>
> I think you've also heard Kenny and I talking about a web front end to
> this stuff.
Oh, good, I meant to suggest that as well. If the OP is a student they
can do a Google SoC on a Lisp GUI, esp. Open AIR which I think may not
be as great GUI-wise as Cello but I think at this stage something
portable to the Web trumps something not.
> One avenue for development here would be to embed a
> browser's
> rendering engine into a tk/gtk window. We already have the
> code to generate the html, all we need is to write the tk extension
> and
> we have ourselves a lisp/tk version of Adobe AIR.
Oh, I thought WebKit included the whole shebang. So we still have to
create a widget for WebKit to live in? Not too bad, I guess. I kinda do
that with my GUIs: get the window and event stream from something like
win32 or Tk, do everything in the content area myself with GDT or opengl.
kenny
--
http://smuglispweeny.blogspot.com/
http://www.theoryyalgebra.com/
"In the morning, hear the Way;
in the evening, die content!"
-- Confucius
On Apr 1, 7:23 pm, Jonathan Gardner <········@jonathangardner.net>
wrote:
> Where's the GUI?
LTk works pretty well for me and is easy to get up and running.
> Finally, I think there are far too few evangelists in the lisp world.
I sometimes wonder for these languages that have marketing departments
why they're spending their time doing PR rather than programming?
Maybe they're not having as much fun as we are...
--
Phil
http://phil.nullable.eu/
Jonathan Gardner wrote:
> I know this is a FAQ, but I still don't have any answers, at least
> answers that I like.
That's because you missed FAQ #1 ("Where are the damn libraries?") and
the answer ("The Open Source Fairy has left the building. Do them your
own damn self.")
>
> But let me ask it in the most vulgar way possible, with blunt
> observations:
That works so well in life I found out the hard way.
>
> Where's the GUI?
>
> * McCLIM is a wart. If someone honestly thinks I should pursue this,
> I'm all ears. Otherwise, it is slow, incompatible with today's GUI
> standards, and too big for its own good. I mean, it takes five minutes
> to start up the demodemo.
Stop sucking up to me.
>
> * A lisp-qt thingy would be ideal for me, since I love Qt. If someone
> has some ideas, then I am open. I looked at the CFFI-Qt attempt over
> at Sourceforge (lcq I think it is called) and it seg faults on me. I
> don't know how to approach seg faults in lisp. If someone has this
> working, a tutorial would be very nice.
Meanwhile you'll be playing Worlds of Warcraft, I presume.
>
> * I have a bias against Gtk. I think it stinks. But I am open if
> someone says that this is the best way to go, I'll give Gtk another
> chance.
>
> * I took a passing look at Cello, but it seems to be almost 2 years
> since anyone has done anything on it.
Two years?! Damn, I knew I have been playing too much Freecell. I guess
finishing hands in thirty seconds on average might have been another clue.
> I'll give it another chance if
> someone says it's worth the time. Cello seems to be the right way to
> go based on its mission statement. After all, you aren't confined to C
> (Gtk) or C++ (Qt) when you code in lisp, so you don't have to limit
> yourself to their conventions.
Yes, it is rather indecently fun having the whole framework in reach,
and being the developer so you can break it any time you like. The Cells
don't hurt, either. And when you have Cells the GUIs don't want to be
static so the fixed widget mentality of standard GUI frameworks looks
like the stone age.
> A "Getting Started" guide for a newbie
> like me that is still experiencing the thrill of discovering things
> like multiple return values would be nice.
I am not sure you can have it both ways. If you want to play dumb use a
framework like LTk, if you want to be a player roll up your sleeves and
stop asking to be spoon fed.
>
> I am totally opposed to closed source or restrictive licenses.
I was wondering when I would get to thank RMS again for doing so much to
vitate the software industry.
> I have
> just had too many good experiences dealing with the licensing issues
> of GPL/BSD/MIT/Perl/etc... licensed code, at both work and play, to
> give any other type of license a fair shake. If I can't legally look
> inside, modify, and share it with people openly, I don't want to touch
> it.
I'll alert the media.
>
> Finally, I think there are far too few evangelists in the lisp world.
http://wiki.alu.org:80/RtL_Highlight_Film
> (There are plenty of lisp evangelists outside of the lisp world,
> though.) If you do something a certain way, don't be ashamed of
> standing up and telling people that your way is the right way. When I
> am learning the ropes, it is so much easier to simply rely on someone
> else's experience, even if ultimately I will discover it is flawed. If
> you really like your way of doing GUIs in lisp, by all means, be proud
> and let me know.
"We have a pool. We have a pool and a pond." (McClim would be good for you.)
kenny (wondering where the hell he put the keys to the kennel)
--
http://smuglispweeny.blogspot.com/
http://www.theoryyalgebra.com/
"In the morning, hear the Way;
in the evening, die content!"
-- Confucius
On Apr 1, 11:53 am, Ken Tilton <···········@optonline.net> wrote:
> > * McCLIM is a wart. If someone honestly thinks I should pursue this,
> > I'm all ears. Otherwise, it is slow, incompatible with today's GUI
> > standards, and too big for its own good. I mean, it takes five minutes
> > to start up the demodemo.
>
> Stop sucking up to me.
>
You didn't write McClim, did you? (I honestly don't know.)
>
> Meanwhile you'll be playing Worlds of Warcraft, I presume.
>
I don't like the license. ;-) Unless you've written the lispy open-
source version and have it sitting in CVS somewhere...
> > * I took a passing look at Cello, but it seems to be almost 2 years
> > since anyone has done anything on it.
>
> Two years?! Damn, I knew I have been playing too much Freecell. I guess
> finishing hands in thirty seconds on average might have been another clue.
>
Alright, I'll take a look at it. I guess when a language is 50 years
old, 2 years is but the blink of an eye. Elsewhere, 2 years would be
about 15 versions too old.
> > I'll give it another chance if
> > someone says it's worth the time. Cello seems to be the right way to
> > go based on its mission statement. After all, you aren't confined to C
> > (Gtk) or C++ (Qt) when you code in lisp, so you don't have to limit
> > yourself to their conventions.
>
> Yes, it is rather indecently fun having the whole framework in reach,
> and being the developer so you can break it any time you like. The Cells
> don't hurt, either. And when you have Cells the GUIs don't want to be
> static so the fixed widget mentality of standard GUI frameworks looks
> like the stone age.
>
Very interesting.
> > A "Getting Started" guide for a newbie
> > like me that is still experiencing the thrill of discovering things
> > like multiple return values would be nice.
>
> I am not sure you can have it both ways. If you want to play dumb use a
> framework like LTk, if you want to be a player roll up your sleeves and
> stop asking to be spoon fed.
>
It sounds like lisp is one of those languages where people actually
get away with grunting menacingly when asking for pointers.
I'll read the code, and go back to my kennel, or whatever it is you
call it that you like to keep newbies like myself.
> > Finally, I think there are far too few evangelists in the lisp world.
>
> http://wiki.alu.org:80/RtL_Highlight_Film
>
I mean, *within* the lisp community. You know, people that go, "SBCL
rocks. CLISP sucks. Don't use CLISP." Those kinds of guys. You guys
are either too nice to each other, or you get your kicks watching
people struggle to learn the hard way what everyone already knows.
>
> "We have a pool. We have a pool and a pond." (McClim would be good for you.)
>
I just spent twenty minutes searching google for that quote. Now I am
going to have to watch an entire movie just to fully understand the
quote. Are you happy now, Ken?
On Apr 1, 8:40 pm, Jonathan Gardner <········@jonathangardner.net>
wrote:
> I mean, *within* the lisp community. You know, people that go, "SBCL
> rocks. CLISP sucks. Don't use CLISP." Those kinds of guys. You guys
> are either too nice to each other, or you get your kicks watching
> people struggle to learn the hard way what everyone already knows.
>
I think we grew out of that kind of name-calling. Trying to promote
the language is not well-served by picking fights between
implementations. The Dylan experience tought us that much.
But: "what everyone knows": is that there is no free lunch. You
either pay (in money or time) for something, or you're a leech. In
large communities most people get away with leaching, but that does
not work in small communities. Cl is a small community.
So my advice is: don't be a leech (I am not saying you are, yet):
either pay for something, or pick one and contribute.
Finally: i know this is a technical newsgroup so whining about free
software is on-topic, but remember what matters: tigers are going
extinct while we piss our lives away arguing about software, what is
wrong with us?
On Tue, 01 Apr 2008 15:14:07 -0700, Tim Bradshaw wrote:
> Finally: i know this is a technical newsgroup so whining about free
> software is on-topic, but remember what matters: tigers are going
> extinct while we piss our lives away arguing about software, what is
> wrong with us?
Don't forget about our dear cousins:
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/science/nature/4202734.stm
Yes, the world is changing. What is going to happen? Soylent Pink for
girls! Soylent Blue for boys!
Maybe we or someone else makes humans extinct and the cycle starts again.
--
Sohail Somani
http://uint32t.blogspot.com
Jonathan Gardner wrote:
> On Apr 1, 11:53 am, Ken Tilton <···········@optonline.net> wrote:
>
>>>* McCLIM is a wart. If someone honestly thinks I should pursue this,
>>>I'm all ears. Otherwise, it is slow, incompatible with today's GUI
>>>standards, and too big for its own good. I mean, it takes five minutes
>>>to start up the demodemo.
>>
>>Stop sucking up to me.
>>
>
>
> You didn't write McClim, did you? (I honestly don't know.)
You have the irony arrow in the wrong direction. I once said something
bad about McClim, the #lisp yobbos have had me on the run ever since.
>>Meanwhile you'll be playing Worlds of Warcraft, I presume.
>
>
> I don't like the license. ;-) Unless you've written the lispy open-
> source version and have it sitting in CVS somewhere...
>
>
>>>* I took a passing look at Cello, but it seems to be almost 2 years
>>>since anyone has done anything on it.
>>
>>Two years?! Damn, I knew I have been playing too much Freecell. I guess
>>finishing hands in thirty seconds on average might have been another clue.
>>
>
>
> Alright, I'll take a look at it. I guess when a language is 50 years
> old, 2 years is but the blink of an eye. Elsewhere, 2 years would be
> about 15 versions too old.
Maybe I just forgot to commit that directory. There are so many. I am
using it to develop this: http://www.theoryyalgebra.com/
You'll need to build Celtk first, it sits on top of that now.
> It sounds like lisp is one of those languages where people actually
> get away with grunting menacingly when asking for pointers.
>
> I'll read the code, and go back to my kennel, or whatever it is you
> call it that you like to keep newbies like myself.
No, the kennel is where we keep the hounds. Where /they/ keep noobs
after catching them we do not know.
> I just spent twenty minutes searching google for that quote. Now I am
> going to have to watch an entire movie just to fully understand the
> quote. Are you happy now, Ken?
Having introduced someone to one of the funniest movies extant? Let's
just say... It's in the hole!
kenny (former assistant greenskeeper)
--
http://smuglispweeny.blogspot.com/
http://www.theoryyalgebra.com/
"In the morning, hear the Way;
in the evening, die content!"
-- Confucius
Jonathan Gardner <········@jonathangardner.net> writes:
> I mean, *within* the lisp community. You know, people that go, "SBCL
> rocks. CLISP sucks. Don't use CLISP." Those kinds of guys.
No, thanks.
> You guys are either too nice to each other, or you get your kicks
> watching people struggle to learn the hard way what everyone already
> knows.
Gee, are those the only two options?
Daniel Weinreb compiled a thorough survey of Common Lisp
implementations here:
http://common-lisp.net/~dlw/LispSurvey.html
Zach
Ken Tilton <···········@optonline.net> wrote in
·····························@cv.net:
> Two years?! Damn, I knew I have been playing too much Freecell. I
> guess finishing hands in thirty seconds on average might have been
> another clue.
30 seconds on average for a random Freecell game is not too surprising.
But what about the hard games, such as 11982? After trying that for a lot
longer than 30 seconds, you would be inclined to write a lisp program to
find out whether it's even possible to solve it.
But, if your program ran for a while and then decided it was impossible,
how could you be sure it wasn't just a bug in the program?
······@nowhere.com wrote:
> Ken Tilton <···········@optonline.net> wrote in
> ·····························@cv.net:
>
>
>>Two years?! Damn, I knew I have been playing too much Freecell. I
>>guess finishing hands in thirty seconds on average might have been
>>another clue.
>
>
> 30 seconds on average for a random Freecell game is not too surprising.
> But what about the hard games, such as 11982?
As with my other timewaster (this graveyard and my killfile) I have a
policy that keeps the waste down: no hard games.
> After trying that for a lot
> longer than 30 seconds, you would be inclined to write a lisp program to
> find out whether it's even possible to solve it.
yeah, but been there, done that. the first program I ever wrote played
solitaire (different variant, tho). Fortran. Using punch cards.
>
> But, if your program ran for a while and then decided it was impossible,
> how could you be sure it wasn't just a bug in the program?
The trick is to write high quality code, that way if it works on a lot
of cases it is perfect. Definition of high quality, unfortunately, is
not transmittable.
kenny
--
http://smuglispweeny.blogspot.com/
http://www.theoryyalgebra.com/
"I've never read the rulebook. My job is to catch the ball."
-- Catcher Josh Bard after making a great catch on a foul ball
and then sliding into the dugout, which by the rules allowed the
runners to advance one base costing his pitcher a possible shutout
because there was a runner on third base.
"My sig is longer than most of my articles."
-- Kenny Tilton
Ken Tilton <···········@optonline.net> writes:
> yeah, but been there, done that. the first program I ever wrote played
> solitaire (different variant, tho). Fortran. Using punch cards.
Well, that's cool. Did you have to learn Hollerith code to be able to
interpret the punch cards the program used to play solitaire? ;-D
Thomas A. Russ wrote:
> Ken Tilton <···········@optonline.net> writes:
>
>
>>yeah, but been there, done that. the first program I ever wrote played
>>solitaire (different variant, tho). Fortran. Using punch cards.
>
>
> Well, that's cool. Did you have to learn Hollerith code to be able to
> interpret the punch cards the program used to play solitaire? ;-D
Actually we simulated the punch cards on a Jacquard loom so the only
hard part was finding manilla-colored yarn. You'd be surprised...
hth,kzo
--
http://smuglispweeny.blogspot.com/
http://www.theoryyalgebra.com/
"I've never read the rulebook. My job is to catch the ball."
-- Catcher Josh Bard after making a great catch on a foul ball
and then sliding into the dugout, which by the rules allowed the
runners to advance one base costing his pitcher a possible shutout
because there was a runner on third base.
"My sig is longer than most of my articles."
-- Kenny Tilton
Ken Tilton <···········@optonline.net> writes:
> yeah, but been there, done that. the first program I ever wrote played
> solitaire (different variant, tho). Fortran. Using punch cards.
Well, that's cool.
I can see how using punch cards instead of standard playing cards would
make it easier for the Fortran program, but doesn't it make it a lot
harder for the human to recognize which card is which?
Ken Tilton <···········@optonline.net> writes:
> yeah, but been there, done that. the first program I ever wrote played
> solitaire (different variant, tho). Fortran. Using punch cards.
Cool. Several years ago a student and I built a system (half in C++,
half in Lisp) to play Microsoft solitaire. It played terribly, but it
was an exercise in building interface agents to use applications
without an API.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dHztL5sp_mA
darcs get http://common-lisp.net/project/cl-opengl/darcs/cl-opengl
darcs get http://common-lisp.net/~crhodes/clx
http://www.stud.uni-karlsruhe.de/~unk6/clxman/index.html
http://www.cawtech.demon.co.uk/clx/simple/examples.html
..or..
http://www.peter-herth.de/ltk/
..or..
use html/js for UI
http://www.weitz.de/hunchentoot/ ..etc..
combine with ajax/comet if needed .. i'm working on a lisp back-end for
doing this http://code.google.com/p/symbolicweb/ .. don't get excited
though; i've quit WoW, but there is a chance i still might not be able to
"finish" this
..or..
don't write your UI in lisp
--
Lars Rune Nøstdal
http://nostdal.org/
Jonathan Gardner wrote:
> I know this is a FAQ, but I still don't have any answers, at least
> answers that I like.
>
> But let me ask it in the most vulgar way possible, with blunt
> observations:
>
> Where's the GUI?
[snip]
the DOM is the new GUI.
--
http://www.coboloncogs.org/INDEX.HTM
On Apr 1, 12:29 pm, vanekl <·····@acd.net> wrote:
> > Where's the GUI?
>
> the DOM is the new GUI.
>
As a guy who writes web apps for a living, I am hoping and praying
that you aren't right.
Life would really, really, really suck if all we had was HTML and
javascript.
Jonathan Gardner wrote:
> On Apr 1, 12:29 pm, vanekl <·····@acd.net> wrote:
>
>>>Where's the GUI?
>>
>>the DOM is the new GUI.
>>
>
>
> As a guy who writes web apps for a living,...
Ah, good. You have been assigned to the Open AIR project:
http://gitorious.org/projects/hunchncells
You can do the WebKit integration. You'll love the license.
> ...I am hoping and praying that you aren't right.
>
> Life would really, really, really suck if all we had was HTML and
> javascript.
>
Wrong attitude. The Lisp trick is to wrap/enslave the beasts so well you
forget they are there and can live in a fantasy matrix where you think
that is Lisp you are coding.
eg, I forgot I was using Tk/C behind Cello until you asked about it, I
thought I was doing Lisp/OpenGL.
kenny
--
http://smuglispweeny.blogspot.com/
http://www.theoryyalgebra.com/
"In the morning, hear the Way;
in the evening, die content!"
-- Confucius
Jonathan Gardner wrote:
> On Apr 1, 12:29 pm, vanekl <·····@acd.net> wrote:
>>> Where's the GUI?
>> the DOM is the new GUI.
>>
>
> As a guy who writes web apps for a living, I am hoping and praying
> that you aren't right.
>
> Life would really, really, really suck if all we had was HTML and
> javascript.
>
MS isn't dropping another 100 mill upgrading their browser
just because they feel they got this sudden urge to become
standards compliant. More is at stake than that.
If you want something to pray about, pray that Mozilla comes
out of round 3 of the browser wars intact.
(defun browser-wars (round users adversary-1 adversary-2
&optional popcorn)
(format t "Browser Wars, Round ~a~%" round)
(game-on adversary-1 adversary-2 users popcorn))
(browser-wars 3 *world*
(make-browser :org mozilla :brand ff3 :tactics 'standards
:bus-model 'open-source :proxy-for 'google)
(make-browser :org MS :brand IE8 :tactics 'fud
:bus-model 'proprietary :proxy-for 'windows-desktop))
C-x C-e
--
HTML5 or bust.
vanekl wrote:
> Jonathan Gardner wrote:
>
>> On Apr 1, 12:29 pm, vanekl <·····@acd.net> wrote:
>>
>>>> Where's the GUI?
>>>
>>> the DOM is the new GUI.
>>>
>>
>> As a guy who writes web apps for a living, I am hoping and praying
>> that you aren't right.
>>
>> Life would really, really, really suck if all we had was HTML and
>> javascript.
>>
>
> MS isn't dropping another 100 mill upgrading their browser
> just because they feel they got this sudden urge to become
> standards compliant. More is at stake than that.
>
> If you want something to pray about, pray that Mozilla comes
> out of round 3 of the browser wars intact.
You'll be praying over its grave -- Himself has switched to Safari for
Windows.
k
--
http://smuglispweeny.blogspot.com/
http://www.theoryyalgebra.com/
"In the morning, hear the Way;
in the evening, die content!"
-- Confucius
Ken Tilton wrote:
>
>
> vanekl wrote:
>> Jonathan Gardner wrote:
>>
>>> On Apr 1, 12:29 pm, vanekl <·····@acd.net> wrote:
>>>
>>>>> Where's the GUI?
>>>>
>>>> the DOM is the new GUI.
>>>>
>>>
>>> As a guy who writes web apps for a living, I am hoping and praying
>>> that you aren't right.
>>>
>>> Life would really, really, really suck if all we had was HTML and
>>> javascript.
>>>
>>
>> MS isn't dropping another 100 mill upgrading their browser
>> just because they feel they got this sudden urge to become
>> standards compliant. More is at stake than that.
>>
>> If you want something to pray about, pray that Mozilla comes
>> out of round 3 of the browser wars intact.
>
> You'll be praying over its grave -- Himself has switched to Safari for
> Windows.
>
> k
Webkit is the dark horse.
I'm especially interested in the new embedded fonts.
I want beautiful typefaces in my browser w/o having
to download gifs.
But the buzz I'm hearing is that Safari can't be
customized like FF, so I'm hesitant to try it.
When Apple tried to sneak an install of 3.1 onto
my computer, that clinched it. No soup for Apple.
On Apr 1, 7:00 pm, vanekl <·····@acd.net> wrote:
> Jonathan Gardner wrote:
> > On Apr 1, 12:29 pm, vanekl <·····@acd.net> wrote:
> >>> Where's the GUI?
> >> the DOM is the new GUI.
>
> > As a guy who writes web apps for a living, I am hoping and praying
> > that you aren't right.
>
> > Life would really, really, really suck if all we had was HTML and
> > javascript.
>
> MS isn't dropping another 100 mill upgrading their browser
> just because they feel they got this sudden urge to become
> standards compliant. More is at stake than that.
>
I happen to believe that we write web apps today only to satisfy
Windows users. See, Windows is so insecure you can't download and run
software on your computer. There is no jail, no security measures in
place to keep applications from messing with each other and with the
OS.
People feel comfortable running webapps because they seem to be more
secure. But I know enough to say that they aren't secure, even with
Firefox. They can't be made secure without the same measures it would
take to make the OS secure.
Firefox may be a better OS than Windows, but it is certainly lacking
compared to what I know about Linux.
Soon, it will no longer be the case that the majority of users are
running Windows. When people get onto a decent platform with a decent
security model, we'll all download and run apps without thinking about
the security implications. It won't be possible for joe user to run
any application that can destroy his machine or even hurt another app,
no matter how hard he tries.
(Using Windows, it drives me nuts that I have to get admin permission
to install stupid programs. What in the world do they need permissions
to mess with my OS for? I just want to put songs on to my iPod,
dammit.)
But more importantly, webapps are terribly restrictive. You can only
do certain things, and you can't do those things well. Some of the
ideas that webapps have forced onto us are good---throwbacks to the
days of thin clients. But as an author of many webapps, I can't tell
you how many times I have run into the limitations of the webapps--
even with AJAX or what-have-you. They simply are not enough to get the
job done. Some things, yes. But never everything, and I'm always
sacrificing the user experience to fit the model of web app
programming. This is not right. It's not the future of software.
> If you want something to pray about, pray that Mozilla comes
> out of round 3 of the browser wars intact.
>
Someday everyone will wake up and wonder why web browsers are running
web apps when those same apps run on your desktop at a million times
the speed with a million times more features and a million times the
simplicity.
One day, you'll have a document reader that reads any document
anywhere on the internet with cross-referencing and you'll have a app
launcher that can find and launch any application anywhere on the
internet. The two will be different tools.
We'll look back at the 1990's and 2000's, wondering why we wasted our
time trying to do something useful on such a terribly restrictive
platform.
> HTML5 or bust.
HTML5 is simply (1+ HTML4). I don't like the direction of this,
recursively speaking. Might as well write a linux emulator on Windows
and have people download that instead of building it piecemeal.
In short, I don't buy that we should all be writing web apps. Let's
write real apps.
Jonathan Gardner wrote:
> On Apr 1, 7:00 pm, vanekl <·····@acd.net> wrote:
>> Jonathan Gardner wrote:
>>> On Apr 1, 12:29 pm, vanekl <·····@acd.net> wrote:
>>>>> Where's the GUI?
>>>> the DOM is the new GUI.
>>> As a guy who writes web apps for a living, I am hoping and praying
>>> that you aren't right.
>>> Life would really, really, really suck if all we had was HTML and
>>> javascript.
>> MS isn't dropping another 100 mill upgrading their browser
>> just because they feel they got this sudden urge to become
>> standards compliant. More is at stake than that.
>>
>
> I happen to believe that we write web apps today only to satisfy
> Windows users. See, Windows is so insecure you can't download and run
> software on your computer. There is no jail, no security measures in
> place to keep applications from messing with each other and with the
> OS.
>
> People feel comfortable running webapps because they seem to be more
> secure. But I know enough to say that they aren't secure, even with
> Firefox. They can't be made secure without the same measures it would
> take to make the OS secure.
>
> Firefox may be a better OS than Windows, but it is certainly lacking
> compared to what I know about Linux.
>
> Soon, it will no longer be the case that the majority of users are
> running Windows. When people get onto a decent platform with a decent
> security model, we'll all download and run apps without thinking about
> the security implications. It won't be possible for joe user to run
> any application that can destroy his machine or even hurt another app,
> no matter how hard he tries.
>
> (Using Windows, it drives me nuts that I have to get admin permission
> to install stupid programs. What in the world do they need permissions
> to mess with my OS for? I just want to put songs on to my iPod,
> dammit.)
>
> But more importantly, webapps are terribly restrictive. You can only
> do certain things, and you can't do those things well. Some of the
> ideas that webapps have forced onto us are good---throwbacks to the
> days of thin clients. But as an author of many webapps, I can't tell
> you how many times I have run into the limitations of the webapps--
> even with AJAX or what-have-you. They simply are not enough to get the
> job done. Some things, yes. But never everything, and I'm always
> sacrificing the user experience to fit the model of web app
> programming. This is not right. It's not the future of software.
>
>> If you want something to pray about, pray that Mozilla comes
>> out of round 3 of the browser wars intact.
>>
>
> Someday everyone will wake up and wonder why web browsers are running
> web apps when those same apps run on your desktop at a million times
> the speed with a million times more features and a million times the
> simplicity.
>
> One day, you'll have a document reader that reads any document
> anywhere on the internet with cross-referencing and you'll have a app
> launcher that can find and launch any application anywhere on the
> internet. The two will be different tools.
>
> We'll look back at the 1990's and 2000's, wondering why we wasted our
> time trying to do something useful on such a terribly restrictive
> platform.
>
>> HTML5 or bust.
>
> HTML5 is simply (1+ HTML4). I don't like the direction of this,
> recursively speaking. Might as well write a linux emulator on Windows
> and have people download that instead of building it piecemeal.
>
> In short, I don't buy that we should all be writing web apps. Let's
> write real apps.
You're probably right, but this is what we got now. It's current
reality, it sucks, but it works, it's what people are actually willing
to bother using/"downloading" and we can build on it and hide some of
the nasty things .. (lisp is nice for this).
Maybe we can sneak in a proper Open Source VM plug-in eventually.
Something low-level, but with a proper common socket API. Maybe
JavaScript will get JIT support and caching of the resulting binaries.
Maybe the browser will get a real "drawing context" or "canvas"
eventually (because of the point above?). I don't know, but there seem
to be some activity indicating that we're heading in these directions.
--
Lars Rune N�stdal
http://nostdal.org/
Jonathan Gardner wrote:
> But more importantly, webapps are terribly restrictive. You can only
> do certain things, and you can't do those things well. Some of the
> ideas that webapps have forced onto us are good---throwbacks to the
> days of thin clients. But as an author of many webapps, I can't tell
> you how many times I have run into the limitations of the webapps--
> even with AJAX or what-have-you. They simply are not enough to get the
> job done. Some things, yes. But never everything, and I'm always
> sacrificing the user experience to fit the model of web app
> programming. This is not right. It's not the future of software.
...
> In short, I don't buy that we should all be writing web apps. Let's
> write real apps.
Thanks for this great post. I could not agree more. Since Ken* joined
the web app band wagon, I have been afraid I'd be the only one who
believed in good old desktop apps.
Every time I log on to GMail (which a lot of people call fast) I get
annoyed by how slow it is -- compared to my Opera 9.50. Finally we live
in an age where new software runs nice and fast on my four-year-old
laptop ... and then I should sacrifice all that for tcp/ip latencies?
I will go on working with cells-gtk3 and enjoy the seamless integration
of cairo (yep, finally it's done.)** and soon OpenGL. What was the
equivalent of that in ajax land again?
HTH,
Peter
----
* Hell Ken, you wrote cello. *All* the bells and whistles. I still
can't believe you're into web apps now ...
** Available from me upon request. I will publish it on my blog next
week, hopefully.
> [Snip]
> Thanks for this great post. I could not agree more. Since Ken* joined
> the web app band wagon, I have been afraid I'd be the only one who
> believed in good old desktop apps.
>
> Every time I log on to GMail (which a lot of people call fast) I get
> annoyed by how slow it is -- compared to my Opera 9.50. Finally we live
> in an age where new software runs nice and fast on my four-year-old
> laptop ... and then I should sacrifice all that for tcp/ip latencies?
Hmm. I think webapps and desktop apps aim at different objectives.
Webapps shine when you have to provide a simple, consistent interface
across operating systems (and perhaps cell phones or other devices).
Desktop apps work best as specialized, powerful, monolithic (more or
less) systems. I don't use gmail for its speed, I use it because I can
access my mailbox from virtually anywhere. Viceversa, a web-based
Emacs (for example) wouldn't make much sense.
Surely lately there's an excessive hype on web applications, not only
in the Lisp world; still, people use desktop applications for almost
everything except some trivial tasks, or for things which are
inherently distributed like social networking, online games and the
like.
> I will go on working with cells-gtk3 and enjoy the seamless integration
> of cairo (yep, finally it's done.)** and soon OpenGL. What was the
> equivalent of that in ajax land again?
I think the future will bring the convergence of web and desktop apps.
(in the meantime, kudos for cells-gtk3!). HTML and Javascript were
absolutely not thought as tools for building user interfaces. Java
applets could have been a step in the right direction, if it wasn't
for their limitations (too many security restrictions, too slow, ...).
There's a google SoC project on the integration of Lisp in the browser
(yes, I know about Kamen Lisp, but never got it to work). Maybe *that*
is the future?
Cheers,
Alessio
Alessio Stalla wrote:
>> [Snip]
>> Thanks for this great post. I could not agree more. Since Ken* joined
>> the web app band wagon, I have been afraid I'd be the only one who
>> believed in good old desktop apps.
>>
>> Every time I log on to GMail (which a lot of people call fast) I get
>> annoyed by how slow it is -- compared to my Opera 9.50. Finally we live
>> in an age where new software runs nice and fast on my four-year-old
>> laptop ... and then I should sacrifice all that for tcp/ip latencies?
>
> Hmm. I think webapps and desktop apps aim at different objectives.
> Webapps shine when you have to provide a simple, consistent interface
> across operating systems (and perhaps cell phones or other devices).
There's nothing that requires the engine behind the webapps to actually
be on a distant machine. Everybody has a browser, and those browsers can
be remarkably consistent in what they display as the result of a bunch
of code. So sure it's lowest-common-denominator in some ways, but it
gets you away from a lot of OS and graphics-package-dependent issues
that could otherwise bog you down before you even got started.
paul
Alessio Stalla wrote:
>> [Snip]
>> Thanks for this great post. I could not agree more. Since Ken* joined
>> the web app band wagon, I have been afraid I'd be the only one who
>> believed in good old desktop apps.
>>
>> Every time I log on to GMail (which a lot of people call fast) I get
>> annoyed by how slow it is -- compared to my Opera 9.50. Finally we live
>> in an age where new software runs nice and fast on my four-year-old
>> laptop ... and then I should sacrifice all that for tcp/ip latencies?
>
> Hmm. I think webapps and desktop apps aim at different objectives.
> Webapps shine when you have to provide a simple, consistent interface
> across operating systems (and perhaps cell phones or other devices).
> Desktop apps work best as specialized, powerful, monolithic (more or
> less) systems. I don't use gmail for its speed, I use it because I can
> access my mailbox from virtually anywhere. Viceversa, a web-based
> Emacs (for example) wouldn't make much sense.
Yep, I just wrote something similar elsewhere in this thread. My
original post was just the (ridiculously exaggerated) answer to Ken's
plan of porting a Cello app to ajax. I fully agree that there are
plenty of situations in which a web app makes perfect sense (eg.
administrative interfaces)
> Surely lately there's an excessive hype on web applications, not only
> in the Lisp world;
It is like that with everything, isn't it? Once there is a shiny new
hammer, every problem becomes a nail again.
> I think the future will bring the convergence of web and desktop apps.
> (in the meantime, kudos for cells-gtk3!).
kudos go to Ken. He did all the heavy lifting. My share in the cells3
port is nothing but some random testing.
> HTML and Javascript were
> absolutely not thought as tools for building user interfaces.
Yep, that's my concern here, too. If I wish to do everything with a web
app, than I'd like to have a platform designed for this use case
(starting with a browser which actually *is* an OS).
> Java
> applets could have been a step in the right direction, if it wasn't
> for their limitations (too many security restrictions, too slow, ...).
... and you forgot the main draw back: Too much java!
> There's a google SoC project on the integration of Lisp in the browser
> (yes, I know about Kamen Lisp, but never got it to work). Maybe *that*
> is the future?
Goes in the right direction. If someone somehow manages to make this
lisp somehow provide the same gui bindings as in -- say celtk ... wow --
you could simply run the same gui code in the browser or on the desktop.
Now I'd love that.
Cheers,
Peter
>
> Cheers,
> Alessio
From: Ken Tilton
Subject: The Desktop Strikes Back [was Re: Newbie FAQ #2: Where's the GUI?]
Date:
Message-ID: <47f3fe76$0$25028$607ed4bc@cv.net>
Peter Hildebrandt wrote:
> Jonathan Gardner wrote:
>
>> But more importantly, webapps are terribly restrictive. You can only
>> do certain things, and you can't do those things well. Some of the
>> ideas that webapps have forced onto us are good---throwbacks to the
>> days of thin clients. But as an author of many webapps, I can't tell
>> you how many times I have run into the limitations of the webapps--
>> even with AJAX or what-have-you. They simply are not enough to get the
>> job done. Some things, yes. But never everything, and I'm always
>> sacrificing the user experience to fit the model of web app
>> programming. This is not right. It's not the future of software.
>
> ...
>
>> In short, I don't buy that we should all be writing web apps. Let's
>> write real apps.
>
>
> Thanks for this great post. I could not agree more. Since Ken* joined
> the web app band wagon, I have been afraid I'd be the only one who
> believed in good old desktop apps.
>
> Every time I log on to GMail (which a lot of people call fast) I get
> annoyed by how slow it is --
Word up.
> compared to my Opera 9.50. Finally we live
> in an age where new software runs nice and fast on my four-year-old
> laptop ... and then I should sacrifice all that for tcp/ip latencies?
>
> I will go on working with cells-gtk3 and enjoy the seamless integration
> of cairo (yep, finally it's done.)** and soon OpenGL. What was the
> equivalent of that in ajax land again?
Flash?
>
>
> ----
> * Hell Ken, you wrote cello. *All* the bells and whistles. I still
> can't believe you're into web apps now ...
Jonathan talked me out of it.
I'll miss the simplicity of application (non) delivery and easy access
for potential customers, but my application is not a casual acquisition
anyway and as I poke around on the Web now I am noticing all the more
how insanely unresponsive the damn thing is which is OK for Orbitz but
not for an application meant to be intensely interactive.
kzo
--
http://smuglispweeny.blogspot.com/
http://www.theoryyalgebra.com/
"In the morning, hear the Way;
in the evening, die content!"
-- Confucius
Ken Tilton wrote:
>> I will go on working with cells-gtk3 and enjoy the seamless
>> integration of cairo (yep, finally it's done.)** and soon OpenGL.
>> What was the equivalent of that in ajax land again?
> Flash?
Right ... the thing all those big firms use to make their web sites
unresponsive ;-) Also, I think it'll be a while until flash can fully
benefit from hardware accelerated graphic. OTOH I heard that Dassault
systems will provide a browser app version of Catia V6. If you can do
enterprise level CAD in a browser, who am I to complain?
In the meantime I keep using emacs.
>> * Hell Ken, you wrote cello. *All* the bells and whistles. I still
>> can't believe you're into web apps now ...
>
> Jonathan talked me out of it.
>
> I'll miss the simplicity of application (non) delivery and easy access
> for potential customers, but my application is not a casual acquisition
> anyway and as I poke around on the Web now I am noticing all the more
> how insanely unresponsive the damn thing is which is OK for Orbitz but
> not for an application meant to be intensely interactive.
Finally. I was already quite afraid of your algebra software losing all
its cool interactiveness for the sake of web app hype.
But seriously, there are two points here:
(1) Obviously we have a spectrum here: Some apps will profit strongly
from a highly dynamic UI, others will profit more from easy access and
drive-by usage. The former should stay on the desktop, the latter
should turn into web apps.
(2) The more general purpose web apps become, the more turns the browser
into an OS. Obviously it is not optimal to constantly run one OS inside
another. Hence, if we really want thin clients, than we really should
have thin clients. That is, the desktop pc should have nothing but a
web app optimized user interface.
Just a few random thoughts while grabbing a new bottle of wine,
Peter
On Apr 2, 3:05 pm, Peter Hildebrandt <·················@gmail.com>
wrote:
> (2) The more general purpose web apps become, the more turns the browser
> into an OS. Obviously it is not optimal to constantly run one OS inside
> another. Hence, if we really want thin clients, than we really should
> have thin clients. That is, the desktop pc should have nothing but a
> web app optimized user interface.
We used to have this. It was called an "X Terminal", and you ran X
locally
while programs executed on a remote server. I realize that you and
plenty
of other people here probably know about them too, but I am always
amused
when somebody suggests, "We don't need to run anything locally, just a
remote desktop client/web browser/whatever!"
I do something similar with Plan 9; you boot the terminal, it mounts a
remote
root over the network, and you're golden. No installing apps for you,
leave
that to the sysadmin. If your terminal is old, you also have the
option of
running them on the server.
Nothing new under the sun, but a lot of old things people have
forgotten ;)
John
On Apr 5, 1:20 am, John <··········@gmail.com> wrote:
> We used to have this. It was called an "X Terminal", and you ran X
> locally
> while programs executed on a remote server. I realize that you and
> plenty
> of other people here probably know about them too, but I am always
> amused
> when somebody suggests, "We don't need to run anything locally, just a
> remote desktop client/web browser/whatever!"
> I do something similar with Plan 9; you boot the terminal, it mounts a
> remote
> root over the network, and you're golden. No installing apps for you,
> leave
> that to the sysadmin. If your terminal is old, you also have the
> option of
> running them on the server.
> Nothing new under the sun, but a lot of old things people have
> forgotten ;)
I don't think these things have been forgotten (or rather, I do, but
they haven't been forgotten by the people who count).
X terminals had three big problems:
- Windows. This was obviously the real killer. "Windows" really
means "Office file formats", and sometime in the mid it became
essentially impossible for most people to work without something
completely compatible with them, which meant Office/Windows.
Somewhere I have a document on the viral nature of these things which
I should dig out.
- Infrastructure requirements. At the time most non-technical
environments probably had inadequate networking, and inadequate
servers/server management to support them.
- Session state. X is session-based so you can't move to a free desk
and get your existing session. VNC &c fix this, but not in time to
save X terminals (which would, anyway, be "VNC terminals"...). Having
desktops follow you around is a huge win for organisations which want
to get away with providing less desks than people, or which want to
allow people to work from wherever-they-are. Lots of companies want
to do this.
One of the people who have not forgotten X terminals are Sun, who have
been pushing their SunRay thin clients for a long time. The networking
&c problems have fixed themselves, while SunRays fix the session state
& Windows problems - you can have a Windows desktop, and your desktop
follows you around - I've seen people painlessly using an existing
desktop they last used the other side of the Atlantic.
Although it is not easily possible to overestimate Sun's ability to
screw things up, SunRays ought to be a very compelling proposition to
organisations facing regulatory pressure to enforce desktop security,
and with large numbers of desktops. That's not a small market.
Jonathan Gardner wrote:
snip
> I happen to believe that we write web apps today only to satisfy
> Windows users. See, Windows is so insecure you can't download and run
> software on your computer. There is no jail, no security measures in
> place to keep applications from messing with each other and with the
> OS.
Exaggerating much? No security? No permissions? If you're
suggesting that most of the windows security features are
bypassed by running as admin all the time, then I'd agree.
I believe the rise of the web app
has more to do with 1) piercing the corporate fire wall,
2) running software that doesn't require an install,
3) doesn't require administration, and 4) has a low
barrier to entry.
I realize that one data point does not an argument make,
but you might enjoy this story.
I work with a lot of women who are afraid of installing
software for some reason. I don't know why that is, but
it's just what I've noticed. They don't mind installing
shit^H^H^H^H a bunch of browser 3rd-party toolbars, but
they enter a catatonic state when they are forced to
install shrink-wrapped software. I can't explain it, but
it's just the way it is in the wild. A phenomenon that
may just be unique to my environs, but I doubt it.
Anyway, this one woman spends most of her time away from
the main office, and is such a klutz that she has been
given TWO computers, one located within the main office that
we install everything she needs to work with, and her laptop
that does nothing more than login to her office computer
remotely and use the apps installed on it. For some reason,
she actually prefers working this way, and the boss doesn't
care one way or another as long as she gets her work done.
What I'm trying to say is, there is a group of
people who have so little confidence in themselves to
install software on their computer, that they prefer
other people to set it up, even if that means the purchase
of twice the number of computers. I couldn't believe it
the first time I saw this, but it does go to show to
what extent some people will go to avoid having to
tinker with their computers.
Many people are afraid to install software on their
machines, and zero-install web apps solve that. Installing
software is scary. For the average user, security really
doesn't even factor into it much; users are treading in
territory that is foreign to them, and that can be
frightening.
> People feel comfortable running webapps because they seem to be more
> secure. But I know enough to say that they aren't secure, even with
> Firefox. They can't be made secure without the same measures it would
> take to make the OS secure.
>
> Firefox may be a better OS than Windows, but it is certainly lacking
> compared to what I know about Linux.
Firefox is a poor OS. It's strength is that it is a cross-platform,
standardized VM in which to run serialized apps. It's a layer on top
of the conventional OS layer, as I'm sure you're well aware, not a
substitute. Ever try to run more than one javascript script concurrently?
You can't, not within the same instance of FF. Again, it's a poor OS.
> Soon, it will no longer be the case that the majority of users are
> running Windows. When people get onto a decent platform with a decent
> security model, we'll all download and run apps without thinking about
> the security implications. It won't be possible for joe user to run
> any application that can destroy his machine or even hurt another app,
> no matter how hard he tries.
Sun tried this, and for a variety of reasons, it failed. The reason
why I hated it is because bandwidth was usually not sufficient to
achieve a satisfactory start-up time. I also hated Sun's UI choices,
but I could've gotten over that.
> (Using Windows, it drives me nuts that I have to get admin permission
> to install stupid programs. What in the world do they need permissions
> to mess with my OS for? I just want to put songs on to my iPod,
> dammit.)
That sounds to me like your music library directory permissions are
not set up right, but I'm just guessing. If you've got this set
up correctly, however, I agree with you, data files should not require
admin rights, in most circumstances.
> But more importantly, webapps are terribly restrictive. You can only
> do certain things, and you can't do those things well. Some of the
> ideas that webapps have forced onto us are good---throwbacks to the
> days of thin clients. But as an author of many webapps, I can't tell
> you how many times I have run into the limitations of the webapps--
> even with AJAX or what-have-you. They simply are not enough to get the
> job done. Some things, yes. But never everything, and I'm always
> sacrificing the user experience to fit the model of web app
> programming. This is not right. It's not the future of software.
Maybe a maturing of the web platform and a widening of the pipes
is all that is required?
For example, MIT's X has separated display from computation for decades.
To say that this is not the future of software is, to me, not
very convincing.
>> If you want something to pray about, pray that Mozilla comes
>> out of round 3 of the browser wars intact.
>>
>
> Someday everyone will wake up and wonder why web browsers are running
> web apps when those same apps run on your desktop at a million times
> the speed with a million times more features and a million times the
> simplicity.
Response time isn't everything, nor is development simplicity, but they
certainly can be useful.
> One day, you'll have a document reader that reads any document
> anywhere on the internet with cross-referencing and you'll have a app
> launcher that can find and launch any application anywhere on the
> internet. The two will be different tools.
>
> We'll look back at the 1990's and 2000's, wondering why we wasted our
> time trying to do something useful on such a terribly restrictive
> platform.
I think the trend is to go where the users want to go, not where the
developers want to go.
Yes, things are in a primordial state now. Doesn't mean they will be
forever. To wit:
>> HTML5 or bust.
>
> HTML5 is simply (1+ HTML4).
More importantly, we are finally getting movement for a maturing of
this new platform.
> I don't like the direction of this,
> recursively speaking. Might as well write a linux emulator on Windows
> and have people download that instead of building it piecemeal.
If people want to run both Linux and Windows on the same machine, they
can do that now.
I'm currently running coLinux/Debian and Win XP on the same machine.
[This was the best way for me to get SBCL to run alongside Windows.]
> In short, I don't buy that we should all be writing web apps. Let's
> write real apps.
What are "real" apps? Didn't you use to partition your code
before the advent of the web so that UI wasn't mixed with core logic?
I long for the ol' days of programming, too, just because it
was easier to program. But I'm willing
to trade more difficult development and a slightly poorer user experience
for,
o wider audience,
o centrally-maintained apps with extremely fast update cycles,
o better user monitoring/tracking/feedback, and
o ability to tunnel under the corporate firewall.
We're just heading in opposite directions, and I think the trend
is for wider dispersement.
BTW, feel free to agree to disagree and we can leave it at that.
The dichotomy of apps we're discussing will co-exist for quite
some time, and I understand your current frustration.
On Apr 3, 1:11 am, vanekl <·····@acd.net> wrote:
> OS.
>
> Exaggerating much? No security? No permissions? If you're
> suggesting that most of the windows security features are
> bypassed by running as admin all the time, then I'd agree.
I think that's a good summary. My impression (based on reading at
some depth about NT, but not that much since) was that Windows has a
security model which puts all but quite recent Unices to shame, but
that people run with it effectively turned off almost all the time,
and most developers make that assumption)
It's amusing how hard it is to do things right. On my mac, the user I
log in as is not an admin user (an admin user being, in fact, just one
who has permission to sudo root), and it's interesting how many things
break in niggling ways because of that.
>
> I believe the rise of the web app
> has more to do with 1) piercing the corporate fire wall,
> 2) running software that doesn't require an install,
> 3) doesn't require administration, and 4) has a low
> barrier to entry.
And likewise, I think that's a pretty good summary. In particular I
think you have to understand how important the "zero admin" thing is.
There is pretty much nothing I would less rather do than spend time
updating and managing some application, and I'm a professional SA so I
know most of the tricks (of course, it might be *because* I'm an SA
that I'm so unwilling to waste yet more of my life on this). And of
course, I also know what SAs cost, since I get to bill my time, and
it's pretty obvious that any organisation which is doing its sums
right will be busily trying to reduce their SA overhead, even if that
means slightly cruftier applications.
P� Wed, 02 Apr 2008 20:09:55 +0200, skrev Jonathan Gardner
<········@jonathangardner.net>:
>
> I happen to believe that we write web apps today only to satisfy
> Windows users. See, Windows is so insecure you can't download and run
> software on your computer. There is no jail, no security measures in
> place to keep applications from messing with each other and with the
> OS.
>
This is just pure nonsense. Windows security is in fact better than under
Unix if you set things up properly.
Just in case you feel a desire to figure out what you are talking about
this following link is to NSA wich gives guides on how to set up comupters
securely including Windows Xp.
http://www.nsa.gov/snac/downloads_all.cfm
--------------
John Thingstad
On 3 Apr, 12:38, "John Thingstad" <·······@online.no> wrote:
> > I happen to believe that we write web apps today only to satisfy
> > Windows users. See, Windows is so insecure you can't download and run
> > software on your computer. There is no jail, no security measures in
> > place to keep applications from messing with each other and with the
> > OS.
>
> This is just pure nonsense. Windows security is in fact better than under
> Unix if you set things up properly.
> Just in case you feel a desire to figure out what you are talking about
> this following link is to NSA wich gives guides on how to set up comupters
> securely including Windows Xp.http://www.nsa.gov/snac/downloads_all.cfm
Sure, to solve all of our security problems, we just need to blindly
trust both Windows(TM Trust Mark) and (especially!) NSA ...
-JO
"John Thingstad" <·······@online.no> writes:
> This is just pure nonsense. Windows security is in fact better than
> under Unix if you set things up properly.
Right, and McDonalds hamburgers are in fact delicious, if they'd just
use high-quality ingredients and gourmet chefs.
--
Frode Vatvedt Fjeld
On Thu, 03 Apr 2008 12:38:12 +0200, "John Thingstad"
<·······@online.no> wrote:
>P� Wed, 02 Apr 2008 20:09:55 +0200, skrev Jonathan Gardner
><········@jonathangardner.net>:
>>
>> I happen to believe that we write web apps today only to satisfy
>> Windows users. See, Windows is so insecure you can't download and run
>> software on your computer. There is no jail, no security measures in
>> place to keep applications from messing with each other and with the
>> OS.
>>
>
>This is just pure nonsense. Windows security is in fact better than under
>Unix if you set things up properly.
>Just in case you feel a desire to figure out what you are talking about
>this following link is to NSA wich gives guides on how to set up comupters
>securely including Windows Xp.
>http://www.nsa.gov/snac/downloads_all.cfm
>
>--------------
>John Thingstad
The problem with Windows is that the security is so intrusive that if
you lock down the system, you can't get anything done.
I've seen more than 10% of the code in a C2 compliant application
devoted to handling ACL credentials. Windows security policies can
prevent or resource limit virtually any action the program tries to
take.
Most Windows programs are not written with security in mind simply
because it's too much trouble to get it right. Instead most
developers hack up the few things they need that won't work with
default adman credentials and then force the users run as adman so
everything else works.
George
--
for email reply remove "/" from address
On Apr 4, 4:36 am, George Neuner <·········@/comcast.net> wrote:
>
> The problem with Windows is that the security is so intrusive that if
> you lock down the system, you can't get anything done.
I think that doesn't just apply to Windows.
On Fri, 4 Apr 2008 08:10:23 -0700 (PDT), Tim Bradshaw
<··········@tfeb.org> wrote:
>On Apr 4, 4:36 am, George Neuner <·········@/comcast.net> wrote:
>
>>
>> The problem with Windows is that the security is so intrusive that if
>> you lock down the system, you can't get anything done.
>
>I think that doesn't just apply to Windows.
True ... it applies to many systems. Almost any system much more
complex than the Unix RWX permission model can be a PITA to both users
and developers.
George
--
for email reply remove "/" from address
Jonathan Gardner wrote:
I realise you're probably a troll, but I can't help but bite.
> I happen to believe that we write web apps today only to satisfy
> Windows users.
I think the exact opposite argument is better: because web apps are
based on (fairly) open standards, they can (with work) run on pretty
much all platforms, from the lowliest phones to full-featured desktops,
no matter what the OS.
In fact, I would say that Mac (and to a degree Linux) are nowadays only
really viable consumer OSes because of web apps.
However, I don't think portability is a key driver in the growth of web
apps; rather, portability is a beneficial side-effect of web apps.
> People feel comfortable running webapps because they seem to be more
> secure.
Security has next to nothing to do with it, IMO. If anything, people
feel less secure: their data is going out across the wire, and they have
to make all sorts of trust decisions.
> But more importantly, webapps are terribly restrictive.
That's what I thought as well, at the start.
But they're also wonderfully liberating. Think about it this way:
* Desktop applications don't usually have a full text and graphics
composition system built-in, as the complexity usually isn't worth it.
With a retained-mode document graph (albeit with a horrible DOM API),
creating pretty documents isn't as hard as manually doing it in an
immediate-mode paint handler.
* Desktop apps need to be installed, usually; running arbitrary
downloaded binary code as the current user is usually a bad idea. Quite
apart from any sandboxing or jail, people usually want to run apps to
manipulate some set of data. Either the data is remote, and the
application remote too (like web apps), or the user has to trust the
application to modify local data. Requiring users to trust applications
to modify local data seems to me to be a bigger security risk than
remote data siloed in the remote application's store.
* The zero-install has a bunch of beneficial side effects which are hard
to replicate with desktop software:
- Your data is everywhere you go, even in public terminals at e.g.
airports
- Your data is backed up, even when you have your laptop stolen
- You don't have to rely on a monopoly OS provider to keep your
essential apps running
- You can access your data and apps while mobile
* Web applications can be integrated via hyperlinks. Because the browser
is the base system which supports navigation and composition, you don't
need to understand the whole of e.g. COM or CORBA to integrate
applications from different vendors, or create a third application
composed from third-party parts. Mashups are far easier to create,
conceptually, than COM embedding.
> It's not the future of software.
Web apps have their place. There's some jobs when it doesn't pay to
remote the interface. You need to bring some processing work to the
client to eliminate latency and increase the productivity of available
hardware.
However, these applications are in the minority. Media manipulation
programs (especially rich media like video), graphics-intensive video
games, high-quality text editing experiences, these things work better
locally (at least with current architectures).
But most applications aren't like that. Most business applications are
field-based data entry and manipulation and table-based viewing and
reporting. Most social applications need an online component to work at
all, and don't suffer from a client/server replication requirement when
that application is online.
> HTML5 is simply (1+ HTML4). I don't like the direction of this,
> recursively speaking. Might as well write a linux emulator on Windows
> and have people download that instead of building it piecemeal.
On the whole Linux front, I haven't had good experiences. The command
line is great; I use Unix tools pretty much exclusively, via Cygwin on
Windows. As a headless server, not too bad: extra cheap in licensing,
somewhat more expensive in management, than Windows.
As a desktop, about the only two things I can rely on are the web
browser and the terminal window. Most distributions include the flakiest
apps, with 3+ different choices for any given application niche, all of
them buggy in different ways. File browsers aren't anything like as
screen real-estate efficient as Windows Explorer: the icons are too big,
the details view grid spacing is too wide, the toolbars are too large,
the menu bars are too high, the fonts look too crummy when small.
Then, there's the whole graphics driver issue. I know there are legal
issues, social / freedom issues and some technical issues there, but I
just don't want to think about them. I just want things to work, and
work well. Unfortunately, that hasn't been my experience, and I've been
playing with Linux since 1996 or so. I've edited too many conf files for
my own good health.
-- Barry
--
http://barrkel.blogspot.com/
Barry Kelly wrote:
> Jonathan Gardner wrote:
>
> I realise you're probably a troll, but I can't help but bite.
As Buddha said, discrimination is the root of all evil.
>
>
>>I happen to believe that we write web apps today only to satisfy
>>Windows users.
>
>
> I think the exact opposite argument is better: because web apps are
> based on (fairly) open standards, they can (with work) run on pretty
> much all platforms, from the lowliest phones to full-featured desktops,
> no matter what the OS.
Still discriminating? Adobe has AIR and Andy Chambers has OpenAIR With
Cells Inside(tm). Lisp+Cells vs. C+++Adam? Game over. Now (with WebKit)
the alleged Web app is also a desktop app. Peace.
> In fact, I would say that Mac (and to a degree Linux) are nowadays only
> really viable consumer OSes because of web apps.
>
> However, I don't think portability is a key driver in the growth of web
> apps; rather, portability is a beneficial side-effect of web apps.
>
>
>>People feel comfortable running webapps because they seem to be more
>>secure.
>
>
> Security has next to nothing to do with it, IMO. If anything, people
> feel less secure: their data is going out across the wire, and they have
> to make all sorts of trust decisions.
>
>
>>But more importantly, webapps are terribly restrictive.
>
>
> That's what I thought as well, at the start.
>
> But they're also wonderfully liberating. Think about it this way:
>
> * Desktop applications don't usually have a full text and graphics
> composition system built-in, as the complexity usually isn't worth it.
> With a retained-mode document graph (albeit with a horrible DOM API),
> creating pretty documents isn't as hard as manually doing it in an
> immediate-mode paint handler.
You have not used Cello, have you?
Come to ECLM 2008, my talk is morphing into "Cello the Lispy GUI, RDF
the Lispy Database, and OpenAIR: RIA and Cells Happy Together." This is
good, the longer the title the less I have to worry about not having
written the talk.
>
> * Desktop apps need to be installed, usually; running arbitrary
> downloaded binary code as the current user is usually a bad idea.
Arbitrary? You just lumped the stuff I get from Kazaa with the TurboTax
I buy from Intuit. Brilliant. (Maybe Buddha was wrong.)
> Quite
> apart from any sandboxing or jail, people usually want to run apps to
> manipulate some set of data. Either the data is remote, and the
> application remote too (like web apps), or the user has to trust the
> application to modify local data.
Or the app can use Amazon S3 or SimpleDB, so you missed one: local app,
remote data.
> Requiring users to trust applications
> to modify local data seems to me to be a bigger security risk than
> remote data siloed in the remote application's store.
Sounds like you are still running Kazaaware.
> On the whole Linux front, I haven't had good experiences.
All is forgiven.
kenny
--
http://smuglispweeny.blogspot.com/
http://www.theoryyalgebra.com/
"In the morning, hear the Way;
in the evening, die content!"
-- Confucius
P� Tue, 01 Apr 2008 20:23:56 +0200, skrev Jonathan Gardner
<········@jonathangardner.net>:
> I know this is a FAQ, but I still don't have any answers, at least
> answers that I like.
>
> But let me ask it in the most vulgar way possible, with blunt
> observations:
>
> Where's the GUI?
As you have noted there are many options.
>
> * McCLIM is a wart. If someone honestly thinks I should pursue this,
> I'm all ears. Otherwise, it is slow, incompatible with today's GUI
> standards, and too big for its own good. I mean, it takes five minutes
> to start up the demodemo.
>
> * A lisp-qt thingy would be ideal for me, since I love Qt. If someone
> has some ideas, then I am open. I looked at the CFFI-Qt attempt over
> at Sourceforge (lcq I think it is called) and it seg faults on me. I
> don't know how to approach seg faults in lisp. If someone has this
> working, a tutorial would be very nice.
>
Qt is implemented in C++. This makes talking to Lisp very difficult.
The problem with C++ is that the linking convention is vendor dependent.
No-one has yet made a satisfactory C++ interface for Lisp and even if they
did the differences in the implementation of the class system makes this
of dubious value.
A strictly C based interface like GTK is a better match for Lisp.
How about cells-gtk?
I prefer CAPI which is portable between Windows, Macintosh and Unix/Linux,
but it is proprietary so you wouldn't like that. I have not yet had
serious problem extending it since I can always access the underlying
win32 when I need to.
--------------
John Thingstad
On Apr 1, 11:23 am, Jonathan Gardner <········@jonathangardner.net>
wrote:
> Where's the GUI?
It's a good question, to which I do not know the answer -- I don't do
much GUI work. But here's another candidate for your list, one I'm
curious about:
wxCL: http://www.wxcl-project.org/language/en/
-- Scott
On Apr 1, 10:22 pm, Scott Burson <········@gmail.com> wrote:
> On Apr 1, 11:23 am, Jonathan Gardner <········@jonathangardner.net>
> wrote:
>
> > Where's the GUI?
>
> It's a good question, to which I do not know the answer -- I don't do
> much GUI work. But here's another candidate for your list, one I'm
> curious about:
>
> wxCL:http://www.wxcl-project.org/language/en/
>
wxCL certainly looks enticing. I'll give it a go when I give up on Qt.
Jonathan Gardner wrote:
> wxCL certainly looks enticing. I'll give it a go when I give up on Qt.
Oh, btw, I remember you were looking for internal advocates. So, I love
cells-gtk. The port to cells3 runs fairly stable by now, I have cairo,
soon hopefully OpenGL -- and I like the looks of GTK.
IMNSHO, if you're looking for something cool, it's got to be celtk or
cells-gtk.
Peter
Peter Hildebrandt wrote:
> Jonathan Gardner wrote:
>
>> wxCL certainly looks enticing. I'll give it a go when I give up on Qt.
>
>
> Oh, btw, I remember you were looking for internal advocates.
Oh, right. Well I would say something nice about AllegroCL but Edi won't
let me, and I would say something nice about Cells but /no one/ will let
me. Meanwhile my latest user (I am losing count! But then I only have
ten fingers...) says I am undercelling Cells, so I think I have found
the perfect sweet spot, no one is happy.
kenny
ps. I have been feeling bad about Cello having so few widgets but it
just occurred to me that this is Lisp, no one would use them anyway.
Hmmm.... sure eliminates a lot of documentation: you get the tcl/tk doc
for the event stream doc, opengl for the rendering doc, snack or openal
for the audio doc... hmmm... k
--
http://smuglispweeny.blogspot.com/
http://www.theoryyalgebra.com/
"In the morning, hear the Way;
in the evening, die content!"
-- Confucius
Ken Tilton wrote:
>
>
> Peter Hildebrandt wrote:
>
>> Jonathan Gardner wrote:
>>
>>> wxCL certainly looks enticing. I'll give it a go when I give up on Qt.
>>
>>
>>
>> Oh, btw, I remember you were looking for internal advocates.
>
>
> Oh, right. Well I would say something nice about AllegroCL but Edi won't
> let me, and I would say something nice about Cells but /no one/ will let
> me. Meanwhile my latest user (I am losing count! But then I only have
> ten fingers...) says I am undercelling Cells, so I think I have found
> the perfect sweet spot, no one is happy.
>
> kenny
>
> ps. I have been feeling bad about Cello having so few widgets but it
> just occurred to me that this is Lisp, no one would use them anyway.
> Hmmm.... sure eliminates a lot of documentation: you get the tcl/tk doc
> for the event stream doc, opengl for the rendering doc, snack or openal
> for the audio doc... hmmm... k
>
I knew there was something. OK, I am re-assigning Jonathan to take over
the prime maintainer role on Cello.
hth, kenny
--
http://smuglispweeny.blogspot.com/
http://www.theoryyalgebra.com/
"In the morning, hear the Way;
in the evening, die content!"
-- Confucius
From: Robert Maas, see http://tinyurl.com/uh3t
Subject: Re: Newbie FAQ #2: Where's the GUI?
Date:
Message-ID: <rem-2008apr04-003@yahoo.com>
> From: Jonathan Gardner <········@jonathangardner.net>
> If you do something a certain way, don't be ashamed of standing
> up and telling people that your way is the right way.
Anyone who tells people that his/her way is the (one and only) right way,
is an arrogant bastard who should be tarred and feathered.
If somebody tells you that his/her way is *A* right way,
that's somebody to whom you should listen.
On Apr 4, 11:01 pm, ·······@yahoo.com (Robert Maas, see http://tinyurl.com/uh3t)
wrote:
> > From: Jonathan Gardner <········@jonathangardner.net>
> > If you do something a certain way, don't be ashamed of standing
> > up and telling people that your way is the right way.
>
> Anyone who tells people that his/her way is the (one and only) right way,
> is an arrogant bastard who should be tarred and feathered.
>
> If somebody tells you that his/her way is *A* right way,
> that's somebody to whom you should listen.
I don't think anyone who is worth listening to would believe that
their way is the ultimate, end-all way. That's only the way a close-
minded fool would think.
But I would hope the way they teach others, the way that they preach,
would be the best way that they know.
I would really hope that they wouldn't intentionally hide their best
ways from others. We have so much to learn from each other.
And worst of all, I would really, really, really hope that they
wouldn't teach inferior ways as superior ways.
On Apr 5, 2:01 am, ·······@yahoo.com (Robert Maas, see http://tinyurl.com/uh3t)
wrote:
> > From: Jonathan Gardner <········@jonathangardner.net>
> > If you do something a certain way, don't be ashamed of standing
> > up and telling people that your way is the right way.
>
> Anyone who tells people that his/her way is the (one and only) right way,
> is an arrogant bastard who should be tarred and feathered.
I think you have a problem here:
You imply that for all contexts there is no "one and only right way".
But to avoid being tarred and feathered, you must allow for another
point of view which is that there may exist a context for which there
is a "one and only right way". Clearly you must tar and feather
yourself.
On 1 Apr, 20:23, Jonathan Gardner <········@jonathangardner.net>
wrote:
> * A lisp-qt thingy would be ideal for me, since I love Qt.
Regarding Qt, you might want to look at this blog, as Trolltech
started a new project called "Qt Script Generator":
http://labs.trolltech.com/blogs/2008/03/10/bind-aid/
Maybe in the near future it will be quite simple to add Lisp to their
integrated scripting system, with access to the whole Qt API.
-JO
P� Tue, 08 Apr 2008 13:47:16 +0200, skrev j.oke <········@gmail.com>:
> On 1 Apr, 20:23, Jonathan Gardner <········@jonathangardner.net>
> wrote:
>
>> * A lisp-qt thingy would be ideal for me, since I love Qt.
>
> Regarding Qt, you might want to look at this blog, as Trolltech
> started a new project called "Qt Script Generator":
>
> http://labs.trolltech.com/blogs/2008/03/10/bind-aid/
>
> Maybe in the near future it will be quite simple to add Lisp to their
> integrated scripting system, with access to the whole Qt API.
>
> -JO
Cool. I used to love Qt.
(I am a Norwegian as is TrollTech which writes Qt. In fact during my
period in Opera I used to work right next to their office.)
--------------
John Thingstad