[Oberon] Re: Gadgets for SyntaxConstrainedEditor

[easlab at absamail.co.za]

On Mar 6, 2005, at 12:23, easlab at absamail.co.za wrote:

> > Why should we be punished to pick chars off a keyboard, a-la-1965,
> > when we could pick structures which are constrained to be syntactically
> > correct at each stage of the refinement process ?

From: Bob Walkden <bob at web-options.com> wrote:
> In googling for Syntax-Directed and Structured Editing, I found
> section 2.3 "Structured Text Editors" of R. Miller's thesis
> _Lightweight Structure in Text_, which offers some insights into the
> trade-offs involved.
> 
> http://www-2.cs.cmu.edu/~rcm/papers/thesis/ch2.pdf

Yes he goes into the subjectively perceived value to the user.
It's too easy to make something which 'works' but turns
out to be of little perceived use.

<digression>
I had to go to linux [from my normal n-o] to read the ch2.pdf.
pdftoascii [or whatever - BTW. the basis of this thread is to be able to
recognise instead of remember - get it?] produced the corresponding
text file.  I can't understand/tolerate when people use pdf when the
contents is purely text ?! The sizes are seen below:

C:ch2.pdf  15.03.2005 19:13:54   64090
C:syntax.edt  15.03.2005 19:54:38   34306

I'm thinking that pdftoascii could easily be ported from linux to n-o.
And a general tool [which would boost n-o's tool-set] which helped
translate C to oberon, would be great.   Such a tool could be
closely related to this 'SyntaxConstrainedEditor' concept.
Another fact which Miller's thesis acknowledges is what I call
'soft translation': contrary to a compiler which gives a perfect
translation; a tool which gives a 'bablefish-like' output which
is later cleaned-up manually is of potential value.  eg. google.

So if the tool was very general, not only a syntax directed editor
for one language, but offering:
* show valid set of selections at present state,
* allow picking a big-chunk, instead of single chars
it could be modified/extended for many tasks.

Wasn't this the reason why spread-sheets were early killer-apps ?
<end digression>

>  why not just copy it from a template file?
> 
> Blackbox has "File | Open Stationery...", which you use to pick an
> existing file. The system copies into a new, anonymous text which you
> can edit and have to save with a new name. Simple.

Well yes, I think mature n-o users already use templates.
IMO what I'm advocating has 2 aspects:
1. menu: recognise instead of having to know/remember;
2. grab big-chunks: which templates allows.

So templates doesn't give the 1st important facility; but n-o 'Tools' does.
In fact why I'm so enthusiastic about the concept, is that existing n-o
already offers [and confirms that it's a winner] many of the facilities,
compared to a pure command line interface. 

Ben wrote:-
> A few (6?) years back I did some thinking along these lines (also
> hittinug upon using Gadgets as a convenient mechanism for implementing
> it).  I finally dropped that line if inquiry after deciding, in light
> of what I'd been able to research on the subject, that the gains
> wouldn't justify costs (in complexity of implementation for example).
> 
> (Despite this I have to admit that it's an idea that's never quite
> lost its appeal for me.)

'the gains' are subjective.
I've got a long time worry/mystery: 
DOS & linux are intolerable for me without Norton Commander &
the linux clone mc.   Yet I'm aware that most linux users prefer
to remember/recall and type-in absurd command strings instead
of the see-select-do-confirm of mc.   They can't all be 'wrong' ?

My research exposed plenty criticism for the 'spread-sheet' 
programming method; and we know that syntax-directed-editors
have gone out of favour.  I just can't understsnd it.

So the question/answer seems to be psychological and not technical ?

Jack Johnson wrote:-
> I've had this idea for a while for a Forth environment for handhelds
> that turns the tokens into real tokens, so you can drag & drop any
> element from the dictionary into a line of code without needing to
> tap/type/write it in, limiting the real entry to just numbers or names
> that aren't yet in the dictionary.
> 
> Having it intelligently follow a syntax could continually keep the
> pick lists or palettes to a minimum for the limited screen real
> estate.
> 
> But then you envision the end result and wonder why not just
> use/implement Gadgets or a Smalltalk environment (Squeak) to 
> implement a similar limited-input programming environment 
> for PDAs.

I think the Forth mindset doesn't promote economy of labour ?
I guess Smalltalk had all these labour saving facilities, but was [at 
the time] hardware expensive. OTOH Gadgets are here, now, free.


...to be continued ...

== Chris Glur.