Everyone's favorite subject, Syntax (was Re: issues)

[Matt Revelle]

I envision there being two main categories of MVCs: the first is
useful for representing all capabilities of the Slate language, the
second is for representing domain-specific languages (DSLs).

The representation of the entire language allows a combination of
graphical and text-based programming.  Blocks of code no longer need
to be visually represented as text surrounded by brackets, the syntax
for defining method collaboration doesn't need to look complicated
(even though it really isn't) - in short, it's taking the ascii art
out of programming.  Code as text is still needed, but it will be
boosted by a mixing with graphical components.

Since DSLs have a narrower application, it may be possible to do away
with almost all code as text, though some data would still be textual.

Of course, MVC would also mean that all the above is customizable.

Take care,
Matt

On 3/7/06, Bill Sun <billksun at yahoo.com> wrote:
> I really like the source code MVC idea.  Perhaps this is an idea that is worth
> putting out on a blog or a wiki page to gradually mold the idea into some
> concrete design and attract able parties to implement?
>
> I understand that you are also concerned with attracting the wrong kind of
> developers, but perhaps that wrong-kind-of-developer will be able to introduce
> the right-kind-of-developer to Slate.  To put it in another perspective,
> repelling that wrong-kind-of-developer, may mean losing the chance to attract
> that right-kind-of-developer as well.
>
> -Bill
>
> --- Brian Rice <water at tunes.org> wrote:
>
> > I was too harsh here, trying to paint an either/or proposition. The
> > problem is that we're conflating Slate concrete syntax from abstract
> > syntax. The bottom line is that there should be an MVC setup for code
> > just as we expect for user interfaces (model = abstract syntax tree,
> > view = presentation of code in user-desired format, controller =
> > editor bindings/metaphor PLUS lexical syntax). But asking me to code
> > it is economically a losing proposition - phrasing a desire in these
> > terms is adversarial and does not promote a good relationship.
> >
> > The RFI page on the wiki is definitely phrased badly since I really
> > cannot invite such requests and they create an adversarial
> > relationship between the possibly anonymous requester and Slate
> > contributors, as if there's some kind of contract that has to be
> > honored for the requester to deign to use the language - this is
> > truly nonsense and is my fault, and I'll try to set up the site and
> > page to more equitably explain what the social contract is.
> >
> > Anyway, I just wanted to explain what I think underlies this
> > interaction.
> >
> > On Mar 3, 2006, at 2:36 PM, Brian Rice wrote:
> >
> > > Just as above, imagine a bright, shiny future where punctuation is
> > > elided by visual support and turned into big, happy, mouse-
> > > sensitive blobs. See "tiles mode" for Squeak code - it's a crude
> > > start. No, I'm not joking - that's part of the vision. Contributing
> > > makes that vision arrive sooner rather than later - not suggestions
> > > that I code more for you.
> > >
> > > The entire point of Slate syntax for now is that I can easily port
> > > and compare Slate code from Smalltalk-80 code. I don't care if C/
> > > Perl/Java coders find it uncomfortable - frankly, they'll just
> > > write C/Perl/Java in Slate, anyway, and the point of Slate is to
> > > NOT HAVE code like that in it.
> > >
> > > If you want another parser, write one.
> > >
> > > Until then, help me with the UI code and other supporting code to
> > > make it work/perform better, because THAT is when I'll decide to
> > > mess with other syntaxes - NOT A MOMENT before then.
> >
> > --
> > -Brian
> > http://tunes.org/~water/brice.vcf
> >
> >
>
>
> __________________________________________________
> Do You Yahoo!?
> Tired of spam?  Yahoo! Mail has the best spam protection around
> http://mail.yahoo.com
>
>