• Jared Windover

    Jared Windover

    2 years ago
    Lately I’ve been working on and thinking about gui layout. I’m building a gui builder, and I’m trying to figure out what the interface should be between parent and child components to allow for maximum flexibility of layouts while still having things mostly just work when they get combined. I’ve been taking inspiration from the existing gui toolkits (html/css, QT, GTK, WinForms), and from more fanciful gui designs (the iron man interfaces, rainmeter skins). I’m trying to understand what tradeoffs are being made in these systems in a holistic way. Like, what layouts are expressible. I would like to generalize away from are the heavy focus on rectilinearity. Things I’ve been imagining are force-based layout algorithms, and some sort of path-based deformation/matching between child and parent, but they’re just thoughts for now. Has anybody come across any literature on these sorts of topics? The only thing I’ve come across is constraint-solvers.
    Jared Windover
    i
    +7
    24 replies
    Copy to Clipboard
  • robenkleene

    robenkleene

    2 years ago
    Recently there's been some discussion about how people mainly use spreadsheets for making lists (e.g., according to @ibdknox and @jonathoda, most users have never even made a formula). If that's true, than what is the state of the art for end-user programming? Does the 1% of users that have created a formula still trump everything else? Or does that mean there's another model that we should consider more successful? And even if the spreadsheet is still the most successful model, what's the second most successful? Because the gap between the first and the second is in reality much smaller than many of us assumed.
    robenkleene
    ibdknox
    +10
    30 replies
    Copy to Clipboard
  • j

    jamii

    2 years ago
    "On the usability of editable software"https://flak.tedunangst.com/post/on-the-usability-of-editable-software https://lobste.rs/s/qkpwpa/on_usability_editable_software Lots of room for thinking about how language design affects the ability to customize software without the anticipation of the original developer. Eg emacs lisp allows redefining functions without having to fork the original library. Eg languages with private/public settings that are enforced by the compiler completely prevent that kind of reuse/rediting, forcing the user to fork which is a pretty heavy-weight operation.
    j
    Kartik Agaram
    +4
    16 replies
    Copy to Clipboard
  • yoshiki

    yoshiki

    2 years ago
    Anyone know of programs for visualizing and understanding assembly and/or CPUs? Thinking kind of what Bret Victor does with Learnable Programming and Inventing On Principle but applied to lower level code. I am guessing there’s industrial software in this general category but am especially interested in programs with a pedagogical angle.
    yoshiki
    Kartik Agaram
    +10
    20 replies
    Copy to Clipboard
  • d

    Doug Moen

    2 years ago
    Tangible Functional Programming by Conal Elliott • apps are user-friendly (usable, concrete, visual) but limit functionality, aren't composable • software libraries are programmer-friendly (composable, abstract, syntactic) The dream is: unlimited access to functionality, usably and composably. How? • Unix pipes are a composable text-mode UI, but we lose the GUI. • A Tangible Value is a typed value (model) paired with a GUI (view, controller). GUIs are composable whenever their underlying values are composable: eg unix-like pipelines, function composition.http://conal.net/blog/posts/tangible-functional-programming-a-modern-marriage-of-usability-and-composability
    d
    Brian Hempel
    +3
    11 replies
    Copy to Clipboard
  • Stefan

    Stefan

    2 years ago
    If you’re not yet locked in to either side of the imperative-vs.-functional debate, this podcast interview might have some thought-provoking ideas about where modern programming languages are headed: https://www.swiftbysundell.com/podcast/71/
    Stefan
    1 replies
    Copy to Clipboard
  • Edward de Jong / Beads Project

    Edward de Jong / Beads Project

    2 years ago
    to my knowledge the original designer for Swift left Apple, and they are now pursuing a kitchen sink approach to the language, with each version adding more crap. Swift used to be a pretty modest language, but is turning into a monster. Apple is pursuing a strategy of constant enhancement to the language perhaps so as to indirectly block Swift from stabilizing and becoming an Android platform language. Not that there was much danger, because a great deal of the language is dictated by the Cocoa underpinnings of OSX API sets. At least it has a very tight spec; the old ObjectiveC language that Jobs used at NextStep lacked a manual, and the spec was "whatever the compiler does". I wonder what the author of Swift will come up with next; not being tethered to OSX would give you a lot of freedom.
    Edward de Jong / Beads Project
    i
    +4
    9 replies
    Copy to Clipboard
  • Mariano Guerra

    Mariano Guerra

    2 years ago
    I'm archiving 2019 and it seems this slack started October 11th?
    Mariano Guerra
    y
    +2
    6 replies
    Copy to Clipboard
  • d

    Doug Schwartz

    2 years ago
    Hey everyone. This is Doug from Seattle. I work at AWS, writing Go code for the docs.
    d
    w
    2 replies
    Copy to Clipboard