I'm quite new to Smalltalk and I've been searching a whole day how I could write a GUI. I've found loads of information on how to work with Morphs and what Halos are, but I don't seem to be able to find what I need (It's only a table with the entries from a Dictionary).
Next to Morphs, I also found quite something on how smalltalk introduced the MVC-principle. I even found the ST-80 Views Category, containing everything I would need, but again I am not sure on how to use it correctly and somehow I don't seem to find the right sources to get me started.
Therefore my question(s): Where to start to build a simple GUI? How should I choose from the billion Morphs available and how do I combine them to a solid interface? Should MVC only be used when it gets more complex or are they also useful for simple GUIs? Is there any general overview on what to use in which cases?
To illustrate what I would like to do, I added some pseudo-code of how I would have it in mind:
d := Dictionary new.
"add data to the dictionary..."
view := DictionaryView new.
view addDictionary: d.
button := SimpleButtonMorph new.
"e.g. change label to sum of values"
button target: [button label: d sum.].
window := SystemWindow labelled: test.
window addMorph: view.
window addMorph: button.
Any help to get me started with this is highly appreciated.
Update:
I recently found a chapter from a book that helped me understand morphic better with some nice explanation and example code and for people who want to know more, there is a whole list of free books too. Also useful were the tutorials from the squeak wiki. Especially the one on Pluggable Morphs helped me to understand this concept better. Note that this tutorial is hidden in the list of unreviewed tutorials (possibly because there is a little error in the project that can be downloaded).
In Squeak (I presume you use Squeak, because you speak of Morphs and ST80),
there are several ways to build GUIs.
Plain Morphs
You can just put together Morphs. Typically, you need some Widget, like a SimpleHierarchicalListMorph. But this process gets tedious fast.
ToolBuilder
If you're creating an application that somehow resembles a tool, of whatever kind, the ToolBuilder might be your friend. Tools like the System Browser, the Debugger, or more recently, the FontImporter are built with ToolBuilder. It requires a Model with the #buildWith: message. Search for implementers of this message to get an idea how to use ToolBuilder.
But probably the easiest way:
Morphic Designer
The Morphic Designer lets you put together your Application UI graphically. You can re-use the design and do not need too many code to hook you program up to the UI. Examples included.
Note: You also found the MVC implementation. It has come out of fashion in Squeak, but it still should be usable. However, you must create a new Project to use MVC. It is, by the way, possible to create tools that can run in both Morphic and MVC projects when you use ToolBuilder.
I need to write a GUI app in Ruby that supports easily changing the text color for items in a listbox (ownerdraw) on Linux.
What GUI framework is recommended?
Shoes
Nobody knows shoes
http://shoooes.net/
It's by _why, so it's zany, but very usable.
Sorry for the super late answer, but in case anyone's wondering:
If you're using JRuby, I think Monkeybars should work for this. I'm 100% sure, first-hand, that it works for general list box manipulation, but what I'm not 100% sure about is whether it has complete functionality. Also not 100% on how perfectly it would work with Ownerdraw listboxes; I used typical Java-defined-netbeans-built boxes for simplicity's sake.
I didn't however, allow users to select multiple of the lines from the list (i.e. ctrl or shift + click). I remember that was working in some ways, but was giving me some trouble as far as passing functions. If I recall correctly, the biggest issue I was having with this, actually, was deciding how I wanted to manage requests to reorder the list while they had many things selected (E.G. if they clicked the shift-down or shift-up buttons while holding many elements). But other than that I think it worked fine.
From what I've seen using both, it's a bit more complicated to set up than shoes, but I found it to be very rewarding (at least as far as a simple school assignment was concerned, where I was required to have a GUI, but wanted to start learning Ruby, so I opted for a Java Swing front end to JRuby).
I certainly wouldn't be the best source for help setting it up and getting all your functions to work, and unfortunately there is minimal information about Monkeybars floating around, especially with regards to specialized "how do I do X?" kinds of questions, but there are boards available (links below) with very friendly and helpful posters. Much like here :)
http://groups.google.com/group/monkeybars-mvc/topics
*looks like the Kenai page has been abandoned and moved to the above google group and github
They also force a MVC architecture - so if you're going to use Monkeybars, you need to design your program to be compatible with this style. I never really saw this as a big deal, but I'm sure some people would dread being told how to structure their code.
So it's important to consider whether those are deal breakers before going through the trouble of installing the Monkeybars tools on your computer, but if you can deal with the few issues associated with it, Monkeybars can be a fantastic tool for building (and perhaps more importantly - manipulating) GUI around a JRuby project.
EDIT: here's some very basic example code using Moneybars:
define_signal :add_element, :add_element
def add_element(model, transfer)
trackList.getModel().addElement(model.addable.to_s)
end
where "trackList" was simply what the list was called on the Java end of the code (so "trackList.getModel()" would return the listbox model holding the list [for this project I needed 7 distinct lists to share a listbox, and to be switched between via drop-down list; if you only wanted one list to use the listbox you could just call it by name and remove the ".getModel()" part]. "addable" was the name of the well-fomatted element/string that I wanted to add to the list, and "model" (lower case) was the 'model' class used to conform to MVC architecture.
Sorry about the ugly signal part at the top, I had heavy deadlines and not enough time to play around with the variable names to use them better. It worked, and that was what mattered at the time (unfortunately). I'm reasonably sure the first one was the name of the signal (sent from the 'control' class) and the second one was probably a reference to the definition immediately following it. Sorry about my ignorance here, but it just made life easier to leave it as was (i.e. as was explained in the Monkeybars example code).
But there you have it, a function for adding elements to a GUI listbox using JRuby and Swing. It automatically redraws the screen when these signals are sent, so that's taken care of too. Right after that def is called you would see the changes. Modifying other aspects of the listbox were just as simple. Hope that helps anyone :)
The best way to go is visualruby:
http://visualruby.net
The code would look something like this:
#view = VR::ListView.new(:name => String, :address => String)
#view.ren_background(:name => "red")
#view.add_row(:name => "Hank", :address => "123 main")
That would make the background red for the name column. The #view variable would be used to populate a spot in the gui form.
So - highly hypothetical question and more like discussion about your coding style and practice you use daily.
I will take as example: CodeGear RAD Studio 2009 (sorry to all D7 fans, but Unicode rules).
I have capability to expand/collapse functions/procedures/records and few other complex data structures, but what if code is lengthy?
What makes the task and its accomplishment efficient - the time required to add comments (its req actually) and expand/collapse necessary area or use OMT offered possibilities?
To give example input from myself - I have small app, about 1,5k lines and I do not use Modeling. Is it smart enough or do I lose a lot of time if I need to find some simple references or (event) calls?
If I understand your question correctly, it is a bout finding your way into code (yours or someone elses').
I use Model Maker Code Explorer for browsing through source code (and for refactoring existing code, and creating new code). At EUR 99, it is dead cheap for what it does.
It usually gives me a perfect overview of what I need, and has a nice 'search' interface as well.
If I need more complex searches, I usually use the GExperts (grep) search function: it is blazingly fast, and with good naming of your identifiers, it is usually a breeze to find stuff.
If I understand your question correctly, you want to know what is more efficient:
Use comments and expandable sections.
Use moddeling techniques.
I think it depends on personal style. Modeling can be great, but has dangers of spending too much time creating nice pictures.
We have a large app 500k+ lines. We do not use collapsable sections because we keep our file size acceptable and we have a good file organisation structure. We sometimes use modeling if complex parts are added (class diagrams and state diagrams). And we use lots of comment to explain difficult parts.
If you have Delphi 2009 you can use also the Delphi Class Explorer (in the View menu) in order to see your classes. It seems a little bit cryptic but only for the first 5 minutes. After this you will get used with it.
Also you can use CnPack a very impressive package in order to help you manage your project. Basically, in the IDE appears a new menu called 'CnPack' which has a bunch of wizards to help you find the way out in the source. Some examples:
Uses Cleaner
Procedure List (it gives you the incremental search capability for your procedures - very neat)
Bookmark Browser
etc.
I'm writing a lightweight IDE. I chose Ruby+Gtk2 for the task. I already have a minimal prototype for it, but right now, most of the code is inside my window class. I'll soon start working on the "real deal", but I would like to know what design patterns should I make use of. I'm planning for plugin support too, so that the app will be extensible. Any ideas are welcome, but please discuss your option a bit.
Please keep in mind this is a scripting language. I'm not sure if all of Java's design patterns apply here.
Design patterns are solutions for common problems. What problems are you having? In consulting work, we see that often when someone sets out saying "Okay, here's my idea. What design patterns can I put to work?," the architecture gets overly complicated very quickly.
Instead of looking for design patterns that you could possibly use, read up on design patterns (I hate to link to Wikipedia, but their article does have a good list to get you started on other searches with at least) and then apply them when you come up with a problem that fits their criteria.
As far as having a lot of code in your window class, that may be appropriate for your application, or you may want to look at something like a loose MVC pattern. Generally for GUI programming, a rigid MVC is going to be too strict, and require too much work for "true" separation of concerns.
There are many common problems that can be solved without design patterns, and that does not mean the solution is right or wrong. Plugin support, for instance, is very often given just by supplying a plugin interface or a set of events a plugin can respond to. Alternatively, you could look at the Adapter pattern.
I'm not sure if this will be much help, but the book "Design Patterns in Ruby" talks about, well, design patterns in ruby and how they might differ from Java's design patterns.
Also, don't forget to check out existing IDEs. What did they use?
Since editing will be a component of your IDE, you should check up on actual open source editors.
Just to clarify a possible misunderstanding: Are you perhaps referring to UI patterns (as opposed to software architecture design patterns)? Your question seems to me to make more sense that way.
I'm not sure if this is appropriate, but there's a nice book about disecting & building an IDE in C#. The book does discuss about the design patterns being used to develop the Sharp Develop IDE.
SharpDevelop is a nice IDE & it's open source you might want to have a peek at this book & home page for Sharp Develop.
The best way to design a ruby GUI application is to use visualruby:
http://visualruby.net
You can make your GUI totally separate from your classes. For example, If you want to create a GUI for the following class, you can do it easily without disturbing it:
class DataObject
def initialize(name, address, email, phone)
#name = name
#address = address
#email = email
#phone = phone
end
end
You create a GUI for this class by subclassing it, and adding the GUI:
class DataObjectGUI < DataObject
include GladeGUI
def show()
load_glade(__FILE__) #loads glade/DataObjectGUI.glade into #builder
set_glade_all() #populates glade controls with insance variables from DataObject
show_window()
end
end
The GladeGUI interface contains all the GUI magic. The load_glade() method will load the file, DataObject.glade. This is a glade form that contains Gtk::EntryBoxes named,name, address, phone and email. The form will show on the screen with all the fields filled-in.
Obviously the show_window() will make the window appear on the screen. The destroy window is automatically called by GladeGUI when you click the "x" button.
This disign pattern can be used for any class. A good example is if you have an ActiveRecord class, and you want to show the record on the screen. You just subclass as above, and it's editable and savable.
This example is taken from one of the example projects on visualruby.net.
Closed. This question is opinion-based. It is not currently accepting answers.
Want to improve this question? Update the question so it can be answered with facts and citations by editing this post.
Closed 7 years ago.
Improve this question
For those of you in the Visual Studio environment, how do you feel about wrapping any of your code in #regions? (or if any other IDE has something similar...)
9 out of 10 times, code folding means that you have failed to use the SoC principle for what its worth.
I more or less feel the same thing about partial classes. If you have a piece of code you think is too big you need to chop it up in manageable (and reusable) parts, not hide or split it up.It will bite you the next time someone needs to change it, and cannot see the logic hidden in a 250 line monster of a method.
Whenever you can, pull some code out of the main class, and into a helper or factory class.
foreach (var item in Items)
{
//.. 100 lines of validation and data logic..
}
is not as readable as
foreach (var item in Items)
{
if (ValidatorClass.Validate(item))
RepositoryClass.Update(item);
}
My $0.02 anyways.
This was talked about on Coding Horror.
My personal belief is that is that they are useful, but like anything in excess can be too much.
I use it to order my code blocks into:
Enumerations
Declarations
Constructors
Methods
Event Handlers
Properties
Sometimes you might find yourself working on a team where #regions are encouraged or required. If you're like me and you can't stand messing around with folded code you can turn off outlining for C#:
Options -> Text Editor -> C# -> Advanced Tab
Uncheck "Enter outlining mode when files open"
I use #Region to hide ugly and useless automatically generated code, which really belongs in the automatically generated part of the partial class. But, when working with old projects or upgraded projects, you don't always have that luxury.
As for other types of folding, I fold Functions all the time. If you name the function well, you will never have to look inside unless you're testing something or (re-)writing it.
While I understand the problem that Jeff, et. al. have with regions, what I don't understand is why hitting CTRL+M,CTRL+L to expand all regions in a file is so difficult to deal with.
I use Textmate (Mac only) which has Code folding and I find it really useful for folding functions, I know what my "getGet" function does, I don't need it taking up 10 lines of oh so valuable screen space.
I never use it to hide a for loop, if statement or similar unless showing the code to someone else where I will hide code they have seen to avoid showing the same code twice.
I prefer partial classes as opposed to regions.
Extensive use of regions by others also give me the impression that someone, somewhere, is violating the Single Responsibility Principle and is trying to do too many things with one object.
#Tom
Partial classes are provided so that you can separate tool auto-generated code from any customisations you may need to make after the code gen has done its bit. This means your code stays intact after you re-run the codegen and doesn't get overwritten. This is a good thing.
I'm not a fan of partial classes - I try to develop my classes such that each class has a very clear, single issue for which it's responsible. To that end, I don't believe that something with a clear responsibility should be split across multiple files. That's why I don't like partial classes.
With that said, I'm on the fence about regions. For the most part, I don't use them; however, I work with code every day that includes regions - some people go really heavy on them (folding up private methods into a region and then each method folded into its own region), and some people go light on them (folding up enums, folding up attributes, etc). My general rule of thumb, as of now, is that I only put code in regions if (a) the data is likely to remain static or will not be touched very often (like enums), or (b) if there are methods that are implemented out of necessity because of subclassing or abstract method implementation, but, again, won't be touched very often.
Regions must never be used inside methods. They may be used to group methods but this must be handled with extreme caution so that the reader of the code does not go insane. There is no point in folding methods by their modifiers. But sometimes folding may increase readability. For e.g. grouping some methods that you use for working around some issues when using an external library and you won't want to visit too often may be helpful. But the coder must always seek for solutions like wrapping the library with appropriate classes in this particular example. When all else fails, use folding for improving readibility.
This is just one of those silly discussions that lead to nowhere. If you like regions, use them. If you don't, configure your editor to turn them off. There, everybody is happy.
I generally find that when dealing with code like Events in C# where there's about 10 lines of code that are actually just part of an event declaration (the EventArgs class the delegate declaration and the event declaration) Putting a region around them and then folding them out of the way makes it a little more readable.
Region folding would be fine if I didn't have to manually maintain region groupings based on features of my code that are intrinsic to the language. For example, the compiler already knows it's a constructor. The IDE's code model already knows it's a constructor. But if I want to see a view of the code where the constructors are grouped together, for some reason I have to restate the fact that these things are constructors, by physically placing them together and then putting a group around them. The same goes for any other way of slicing up a class/struct/interface. What if I change my mind and want to see the public/protected/private stuff separated out into groups first, and then grouped by member kind?
Using regions to mark out public properties (for example) is as bad as entering a redundant comment that adds nothing to what is already discernible from the code itself.
Anyway, to avoid having to use regions for that purpose, I wrote a free, open source Visual Studio 2008 IDE add-in called Ora. It provides a grouped view automatically, making it far less necessary to maintain physical grouping or to use regions. You may find it useful.
I think that it's a useful tool, when used properly. In many cases, I feel that methods and enumerations and other things that are often folded should be little black boxes. Unless you must look at them for some reason, their contents don't matter and should be as hidden as possible. However, I never fold private methods, comments, or inner classes. Methods and enums are really the only things I fold.
My approach is similar to a few others here, using regions to organize code blocks into constructors, properties, events, etc.
There's an excellent set of VS.NET macros by Roland Weigelt available from his blog entry, Better Keyboard Support for #region ... #endregion. I've been using these for years, mapping ctrl+. to collapse the current region and ctrl++ to expand it. Find that it works a lot better that the default VS.NET functionality which folds/unfolds everything.
I personally use #Regions all the time. I find that it helps me to keep things like properties, declarations, etc separated from each other.
This is probably a good answer, too!
Coding Horror
Edit: Dang, Pat beat me to this!
The Coding Horror article actual got me thinking about this as well.
Generally, I large classes I will put a region around the member variables, constants, and properties to reduce the amount of text I have to scroll through and leave everything else outside of a region. On forms I will generally group things into "member variables, constants, and properties", form functions, and event handlers. Once again, this is more so I don't have to scroll through a lot of text when I just want to review some event handlers.
I prefer #regions myself, but an old coworker couldn't stand to have things hidden. I understood his point once I worked on a page with 7 #regions, at least 3 of which had been auto-generated and had the same name, but in general I think they're a useful way of splitting things up and keeping everything less cluttered.
I really don't have a problem with using #region to organize code. Personally, I'll usually setup different regions for things like properties, event handlers, and public/private methods.
Eclipse does some of this in Java (or PHP with plugins) on its own. Allows you to fold functions and such. I tend to like it. If I know what a function does and I am not working on it, I dont need to look at it.
Emacs has a folding minor mode, but I only fire it up occasionally. Mostly when I'm working on some monstrosity inherited from another physicist who evidently had less instruction or took less care about his/her coding practices.
Using regions (or otherwise folding code) should have nothing to do with code smells (or hiding them) or any other idea of hiding code you don't want people to "easily" see.
Regions and code folding is really all about providing a way to easily group sections of code that can be collapsed/folded/hidden to minimize the amount of extraneous "noise" around what you are currently working on. If you set things up correctly (meaning actually name your regions something useful, like the name of the method contained) then you can collapse everything except for the function you are currently editing and still maintain some level of context without having to actually see the other code lines.
There probably should be some best practice type guidelines around these ideas, but I use regions extensively to provide a standard structure to my code files (I group events, class-wide fields, private properties/methods, public properties/methods). Each method or property also has a region, where the region name is the method/property name. If I have a bunch of overloaded methods, the region name is the full signature and then that entire group is wrapped in a region that is just the function name.
I personally hate regions. The only code that should be in regions in my opinion is generated code.
When I open file I always start with Ctrl+M+O. This folds to method level. When you have regions you see nothing but region names.
Before checking in I group methods/fields logically so that it looks ok after Ctrl+M+O.
If you need regions you have to much lines in your class. I also find that this is very common.
region ThisLooksLikeWellOrganizedCodeBecauseIUseRegions
// total garbage, no structure here
endregion
Enumerations
Properties
.ctors
Methods
Event Handlers
That's all I use regions for. I had no idea you could use them inside of methods.
Sounds like a terrible idea :)