Re: [9fans] Evolving rio / GUI development

["Fco. J. Ballesteros" <nemo@lsub.org>]

[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 266 bytes --]

I don't think it does, if I understand what you said.
Doing UIs with omero is a bit simpler than doing them
with rio (same for acme). But it still requires programming.
Also, we are using the oberon/acme style of interaction (although
we got graphics as well).

[-- Attachment #2: Type: message/rfc822, Size: 3222 bytes --]

From: Kenji Okamoto <okamoto@granite.cias.osakafu-u.ac.jp>
To: 9fans@cse.psu.edu
Subject: Re: [9fans] Evolving rio / GUI development
Date: Mon, 21 Feb 2005 11:54:16 +0900
Message-ID: <1831e14deca9e2a1e4c2c185f4979bcd@granite.cias.osakafu-u.ac.jp>

> Regarding the UIs,
> we have what we call omero (another experiment), it's a mixture of
> a window-toolkit and a file server, that handles all the graphics by
> its own. The application creates files to build its UI, and the fs takes
> care of the mouse and everything else. This allows you to replicate
> and move around UI components without placing the burden in the
> application.

How do you think that recent GUI programming style is too difficult
to understand for non-computer science students.   We need GUI
only for user interface, and it should be very easy to deal with, and
can be used from all of the languages without special enbedded portion
of those tools.

Once upon a time, programming was a fan for many scientists because
it was not so difficult.    They have to just care of the precisenenss of
their own parts.   Now a days, I think most of them are buying some
commercial products and students don't know how to make it from
scratch.   It will soon make this world darker I fear.

Does your Plan B help such?

Kenji