|
From: | Przemek Klosowski |
Subject: | Re: Is it GUI? Or is it IDE? |
Date: | Tue, 28 Aug 2012 09:23:45 -0400 |
User-agent: | Mozilla/5.0 (X11; Linux x86_64; rv:13.0) Gecko/20120615 Thunderbird/13.0.1 |
On 08/28/2012 03:01 AM, Daniel J Sebald wrote:
On 08/27/2012 12:28 PM, Michael D Godfrey wrote:Has there been enough chance for review to say it is time to make the switch from GUI to IDE? The sooner the better, I would say.Hasn't been enough feedback yet. Max? Carnë? Jordi? Others? There is still an open question from John about what the perceived expected nomenclature is for a user interface. I'll pose a couple more open ended questions: Does this new interface qualify as an IDE, either now or in the future? What confusion can be created by choosing either expression?
As an 'other' I always understood the graphical setup that shows up on startup is the IDE (Integrated Development Environment). To me this is a useful distinction from the generic GUI, which implies that I can write my own graphical screens with visual input and output widgets that serve my own applications.
Now, my favorite IDE design is to layer a default set of widgets on top of a GUI building infrastructure: such initial default set provides a basic environment to interact with the interpreter, but it can be modified and customized sligtly---or entirely.
Long ago, when Tcl was viable, I used to write Tcl/Tk applications this way: there would be a default layout but the final step in the startup would read and execute the ~/.apprc file which could totally rearrange the application, thanks to the dynamic nature and introspection in Tcl.
[Prev in Thread] | Current Thread | [Next in Thread] |