6 Feb
2015
6 Feb
'15
4:09 p.m.
Hi,
Today on [1] I read this:
"""
But, more important than technology is the humane face of Moose. Great
ideas come from a state of play in which the current state of facts is
taken apart and put together in a new way. That is why Moose is not a
fixed thing, but a continuously moving target defined by what the
community decides to play with. The only steady concern is to offer at
every moment a set of engineered toys and the proper environment for a
joyful and perhaps a successful play. All the rest is left for us, the
players.
"""
[1] http://www.themoosebook.org/book/philosophy/research
But I feel like playing along with my ideas in Moose. It doesn't matter
if I change the way I ask, from time to time my questions get no answer
and I revisit the bitter sweet experience of learning Moose.
Several weeks ago I asked several questions about Moose. The "+1
consensus" was about asking simpler, so I did. Still I got no answer.
I can understand that a direct question to a specific person gets no
answer. Hell I'm pretty bad at addressing that questions when are
directed to myself from time to time, but an open question for the whole
community with only "+1" as the "collective" answer and then silence,
even if I try to implement the suggestions for asking in another way can
be very... not encouraging.
Today I'm still wondering why or how I can't tell a tree to show the
contents only if the node is selected, but I get error traces and lost
of information by selecting an empty part of the tree to which my custom
browser doesn't know how to respond to.
Today I'm feeling there is no "us" in "players" for Moose,
specially if
you're a newbie... only "you" the "single player".
:-/
Offray
6 Feb
6 Feb
4:11 p.m.
Hi,
I am sorry you feel this way. I still have your mail to answer, but I was
over busy over the past two weeks. I will get back to it when I will get
time.
Cheers,
Doru
On Fri, Feb 6, 2015 at 4:09 PM, Offray Vladimir Luna Cárdenas <
offray(a)riseup.net> wrote:
Hi,
Today on [1] I read this:
"""
But, more important than technology is the humane face of Moose. Great
ideas come from a state of play in which the current state of facts is
taken apart and put together in a new way. That is why Moose is not a fixed
thing, but a continuously moving target defined by what the community
decides to play with. The only steady concern is to offer at every moment a
set of engineered toys and the proper environment for a joyful and perhaps
a successful play. All the rest is left for us, the players.
"""
[1] http://www.themoosebook.org/book/philosophy/research
But I feel like playing along with my ideas in Moose. It doesn't matter if
I change the way I ask, from time to time my questions get no answer and I
revisit the bitter sweet experience of learning Moose.
Several weeks ago I asked several questions about Moose. The "+1
consensus" was about asking simpler, so I did. Still I got no answer.
I can understand that a direct question to a specific person gets no
answer. Hell I'm pretty bad at addressing that questions when are directed
to myself from time to time, but an open question for the whole community
with only "+1" as the "collective" answer and then silence, even if I
try
to implement the suggestions for asking in another way can be very... not
encouraging.
Today I'm still wondering why or how I can't tell a tree to show the
contents only if the node is selected, but I get error traces and lost of
information by selecting an empty part of the tree to which my custom
browser doesn't know how to respond to.
Today I'm feeling there is no "us" in "players" for Moose,
specially if
you're a newbie... only "you" the "single player".
:-/
Offray
_______________________________________________
Moose-dev mailing list
Moose-dev(a)iam.unibe.ch
https://www.iam.unibe.ch/mailman/listinfo/moose-dev
--
www.tudorgirba.com
"Every thing has its own flow"
5:12 p.m.
Hi,
Well in small communities like our own in Moose/Pharo there are
sometimes when most of the people are just busy and newbies can feel
lonely. Still playing along can be a valuable learning experience, as
long as is not the only mode of play. In my case, today's plays are
becoming fruitful. More details in the proper thread.
Thanks,
Offray
El 06/02/15 a las 10:11, Tudor Girba escribió:
Hi,
I am sorry you feel this way. I still have your mail to answer, but I was over
busy over the past two weeks. I will get back to it when I will get time.
Cheers,
Doru
On Fri, Feb 6, 2015 at 4:09 PM, Offray Vladimir Luna Cárdenas <offray(a)riseup.net
<mailto:offray@riseup.net>> wrote:
Hi,
Today on [1] I read this:
"""
But, more important than technology is the humane face of Moose. Great ideas
come from a state of play in which the current state of facts is taken apart
and put together in a new way. That is why Moose is not a fixed thing, but a
continuously moving target defined by what the community decides to play
with. The only steady concern is to offer at every moment a set of
engineered toys and the proper environment for a joyful and perhaps a
successful play. All the rest is left for us, the players.
"""
[1] http://www.themoosebook.org/__book/philosophy/research
<http://www.themoosebook.org/book/philosophy/research>
But I feel like playing along with my ideas in Moose. It doesn't matter if I
change the way I ask, from time to time my questions get no answer and I
revisit the bitter sweet experience of learning Moose.
Several weeks ago I asked several questions about Moose. The "+1
consensus"
was about asking simpler, so I did. Still I got no answer.
I can understand that a direct question to a specific person gets no answer.
Hell I'm pretty bad at addressing that questions when are directed to myself
from time to time, but an open question for the whole community with only
"+1" as the "collective" answer and then silence, even if I try
to implement
the suggestions for asking in another way can be very... not encouraging.
Today I'm still wondering why or how I can't tell a tree to show the
contents only if the node is selected, but I get error traces and lost of
information by selecting an empty part of the tree to which my custom
browser doesn't know how to respond to.
Today I'm feeling there is no "us" in "players" for Moose,
specially if
you're a newbie... only "you" the "single player".
:-/
Offray
_________________________________________________
Moose-dev mailing list
Moose-dev(a)iam.unibe.ch <mailto:Moose-dev@iam.unibe.ch>
https://www.iam.unibe.ch/__mailman/listinfo/moose-dev
<https://www.iam.unibe.ch/mailman/listinfo/moose-dev>
--
www.tudorgirba.com <http://www.tudorgirba.com>
"Every thing has its own flow"
_______________________________________________
Moose-dev mailing list
Moose-dev(a)iam.unibe.ch
https://www.iam.unibe.ch/mailman/listinfo/moose-dev
5:36 p.m.
Hi,
As I said in the more hopeful side of this thread, playing along can be
a valuable learning experience.
Today I hunted a long standing bug regarding the behaviour of
Grafoscopio which I described as:
El 06/02/15 a las 10:09, Offray Vladimir Luna Cárdenas escribió:
[...]
Today I'm still wondering why or how I can't tell a tree to show the
contents only if the node is selected, but I get error traces and lost
of information by selecting an empty part of the tree to which my custom
browser doesn't know how to respond to.
[...]
The key thing was to read this apart from [1] and [2] and connect it
with the diagram on [3] (which I had seen before):
=[a]===================
The fundamental idea behind Glamour starts from the observation that the
navigation flow should be orthogonal to the way of presentation. In
Glamour, this navigation flow is captured through Panes, Ports and
Transmissions: the Panes represent the building blocks, the Ports
provide the hooks, and the **Transmissions form the fiber of the browser
by connecting the ports**.
[...]
Because now we have two origins, there will be two objects in the
#entity port corresponding to the selected class and to the selected
method. Thus, the display: block of the presentations accepts two
parameters.
========================
[1] http://www.themoosebook.org/book/internals/glamour/transmissions
[2] http://www.themoosebook.org/book/internals/glamour/presentations
[3] http://www.themoosebook.org/book/internals/glamour/sketching
This analogy of transmissions as (optic) "fiber", the diagram on [3] and
the text on [a] made finally click on my mind. As a newbie I was going
by the concrete examples without proper conceptual understanding and
even when I asked for it and was properly pointed to [3] I went without
taking the proper time to understand the connections and details. Being
by myself helped my on that.
Now I have code like this:
=[b]===================
(browser transmit )
from: #tree port: #selection;
from: #nodeHeader port: #text;
to: #nodeHeader port: #neverland1;
when: [:node :text | text notNil & node notNil];
transformed: [:node :text | node header: text asString]
========================
and my browser knows when to show something properly.
Still I have to deal with the questions about executable code in nodes
and embeddable playgrounds in pane views, but after accumulated
frustration, playing along is being fruitful :-).
Thanks,
Offray
3615
days inactive
3615
days old
3 comments
2 participants
participants (2)
-
Offray Vladimir Luna Cárdenas -
Tudor Girba