librelist archives

« back to archive

Shoes 4

Shoes 4

From:
ashbb
Date:
2012-05-23 @ 12:15
Hi Peter, Eric and folks,

I'd like to start a new project: Shoes 4

After _why had gone, we've tried many colored Shoes projects, i.e. red,
blue, brown, green, purple, orange, etc.

I think that we needed all of them to get experience.
And now came to start Shoes 4 project. :)

My thought:
- Programming Language: JRuby
- Runtime Dependencies: SWT
- Name of Gem: shoes
- Tests: ShoesSpec

I know that there is already BrownShoes/SWT project.
But I'd like to start from scratch.
Of course, we can use all of our experience and codes we already have. ;-)

Thoughts?

ashbb

Re: [shoes] Shoes 4

From:
Peter Fitzgibbons
Date:
2012-05-23 @ 14:04
How' bout you tell what concerns you have with the current Brown/SWT, and
we'll create tickets for work?
I'm perfectly fine with calling Brown/SWT "Shoes 4"

Let's not splinter.

Shoes On
Peter Fitzgibbons
(847) 859-9550
Email: peter.fitzgibbons@gmail.com
IM GTalk: peter.fitzgibbons
IM AOL: peter.fitzgibbons@gmail.com


On Wed, May 23, 2012 at 7:15 AM, ashbb <ashbbb@gmail.com> wrote:

> Hi Peter, Eric and folks,
>
> I'd like to start a new project: Shoes 4
>
> After _why had gone, we've tried many colored Shoes projects, i.e. red,
> blue, brown, green, purple, orange, etc.
>
> I think that we needed all of them to get experience.
> And now came to start Shoes 4 project. :)
>
> My thought:
> - Programming Language: JRuby
> - Runtime Dependencies: SWT
> - Name of Gem: shoes
> - Tests: ShoesSpec
>
> I know that there is already BrownShoes/SWT project.
> But I'd like to start from scratch.
> Of course, we can use all of our experience and codes we already have. ;-)
>
> Thoughts?
>
> ashbb
>

Re: [shoes] Shoes 4

From:
Date:
2012-05-24 @ 12:47
could not decode message

Re: [shoes] Shoes 4

From:
Peter Fitzgibbons
Date:
2012-05-24 @ 14:02
My and Eric's latest work on BrownShoes was indeed vertical... all
functionality.

Ashbb, any problem with forking from BrownShoes into shoes/shoes4 ?
Rember baby and bathwater?  There are already Rspec specs, so refactoring
is covered.

Thoughts?
Peter Fitzgibbons
(847) 859-9550
Email: peter.fitzgibbons@gmail.com
IM GTalk: peter.fitzgibbons
IM AOL: peter.fitzgibbons@gmail.com


On Thu, May 24, 2012 at 7:47 AM, <deastman1@gmail.com> wrote:

> I'm hoping that is what everyone wanted to hear.
>
> I also hope that Brown shoes will grow vertically (building working
> methods) as opposed to horizontally (lovely structure but nothing to show)
> which will entice developers to try it.
>
> Err, shoes on.
>
>
>
> -- Sent from my HP Pre3
>
> ------------------------------
> On 24 May 2012 13:12, ashbb <ashbbb@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> Hi all,
>
> Thank you for the discussion. Sorry for my poor explanation. :-P
>
> I agree,
> - Let's not splinter. We'll be more successful working together.
> - Start from the base of brown shoes.
>
> So, from now on, let's call it "Shoes 4".
>
> AND in order to work together in one project and show clearly,
> I'd like to open a new repo "shoes/shoes4" on github. ;-)
>
> and then,
> - write README for Shoes 4 project
> - copy something (or everything if reasonable :)) from brown shoes repo
>
> I agree to do test-first coding in Shoes 4 project, because I want to make
> ShoesSpec (i.e. executable specs for Shoes).
>
> Now, there are differences between current brown shoes and purple shoes.
> Thanks to Eric for listing up pros and cons. :)
> I have a few questions about the current brown shoes architecture.
> So, I'd like to discuss about them in the new Shoes 4 project.
>
> How about this proposal?
>
> ashbb
>
>

Re: [shoes] Shoes 4

From:
ashbb
Date:
2012-05-24 @ 14:27
Hi Peter,

> Ashbb, any problem with forking from BrownShoes into shoes/shoes4 ?
Oh, is it possible?
If yes, I have no problem. I just want to
https://github.com/shoes/shoes4.git repo.

But after forking, I'd like to clean up first.
Meaning is:
- delete all directories and files except spec
- re-write README

If you don't want deleting all, it's okay making a new branch. ;-)

ashbb

Re: [shoes] Shoes 4

From:
Eric Watson
Date:
2012-05-24 @ 14:51
On May 24, 2012, at 9:27 AM, ashbb wrote:

> But after forking, I'd like to clean up first.
> Meaning is:
> - delete all directories and files except spec 
> - re-write README

I agree that the brown_shoes repo could be cleaned up a little in order to
become shoes4. But maybe not quite this much ;)

In particular, it would be nice to refactor the code we have (as heavily 
as necessary) rather than writing it all again from scratch.

Keep:

- bin/*
- features/*
- fonts/*
- lib/shoes/*
- spec/shoes/*
- static/*


Delete:

- archive/*
- lib/shoes-archive/*
- lib/shoes-archive.rb
- lib/swing_shoes/*
- lib/swing_shoes.rb
- lib/white_shoes/*
- lib/white_shoes.rb
- spec/swing_shoes/*
- spec/white_shoes/*
- spec/todo
- LEARNING_PJF
- Guardfile
- README.rdoc
- rspec.readme
- swing-shoooes*


Move:

- images/ -> samples/images/
- sounds/ -> samples/sounds/
- lib/shoes/swt_shoes -> lib/shoes/swt
- lib/*.jar, lib/log4j/ -> [some place for java libs (lib/support/?)]
- testing/* -> samples/
- swt-shoooes* -> bin/


What do you think?

Eric

Re: [shoes] Shoes 4

From:
Peter Fitzgibbons
Date:
2012-05-24 @ 14:55
I'm in 99.8%

Keep Guardfile.

Forking now.

Peter Fitzgibbons
(847) 859-9550
Email: peter.fitzgibbons@gmail.com
IM GTalk: peter.fitzgibbons
IM AOL: peter.fitzgibbons@gmail.com


On Thu, May 24, 2012 at 9:51 AM, Eric Watson <wasnotrice@gmail.com> wrote:

>
> On May 24, 2012, at 9:27 AM, ashbb wrote:
>
> > But after forking, I'd like to clean up first.
> > Meaning is:
> > - delete all directories and files except spec
> > - re-write README
>
> I agree that the brown_shoes repo could be cleaned up a little in order to
> become shoes4. But maybe not quite this much ;)
>
> In particular, it would be nice to refactor the code we have (as heavily
> as necessary) rather than writing it all again from scratch.
>
> Keep:
>
> - bin/*
> - features/*
> - fonts/*
> - lib/shoes/*
> - spec/shoes/*
> - static/*
>
>
> Delete:
>
> - archive/*
> - lib/shoes-archive/*
> - lib/shoes-archive.rb
> - lib/swing_shoes/*
> - lib/swing_shoes.rb
> - lib/white_shoes/*
> - lib/white_shoes.rb
> - spec/swing_shoes/*
> - spec/white_shoes/*
> - spec/todo
> - LEARNING_PJF
> - Guardfile
> - README.rdoc
> - rspec.readme
> - swing-shoooes*
>
>
> Move:
>
> - images/ -> samples/images/
> - sounds/ -> samples/sounds/
> - lib/shoes/swt_shoes -> lib/shoes/swt
> - lib/*.jar, lib/log4j/ -> [some place for java libs (lib/support/?)]
> - testing/* -> samples/
> - swt-shoooes* -> bin/
>
>
> What do you think?
>
> Eric
>
>

Re: [shoes] Shoes 4

From:
David Eastman
Date:
2012-05-24 @ 15:11
I'll try to run my stuff (a game) with brown shoes and see what is missing
right now. Which points to the need for a how-to section in the README.

On Thu, May 24, 2012 at 3:55 PM, Peter Fitzgibbons <
peter.fitzgibbons@gmail.com> wrote:

> I'm in 99.8%
>
> Keep Guardfile.
>
> Forking now.
>
> Peter Fitzgibbons
> (847) 859-9550
> Email: peter.fitzgibbons@gmail.com
> IM GTalk: peter.fitzgibbons
> IM AOL: peter.fitzgibbons@gmail.com
>
>
> On Thu, May 24, 2012 at 9:51 AM, Eric Watson <wasnotrice@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>>
>> On May 24, 2012, at 9:27 AM, ashbb wrote:
>>
>> > But after forking, I'd like to clean up first.
>> > Meaning is:
>> > - delete all directories and files except spec
>> > - re-write README
>>
>> I agree that the brown_shoes repo could be cleaned up a little in order
>> to become shoes4. But maybe not quite this much ;)
>>
>> In particular, it would be nice to refactor the code we have (as heavily
>> as necessary) rather than writing it all again from scratch.
>>
>> Keep:
>>
>> - bin/*
>> - features/*
>> - fonts/*
>> - lib/shoes/*
>> - spec/shoes/*
>> - static/*
>>
>>
>> Delete:
>>
>> - archive/*
>> - lib/shoes-archive/*
>> - lib/shoes-archive.rb
>> - lib/swing_shoes/*
>> - lib/swing_shoes.rb
>> - lib/white_shoes/*
>> - lib/white_shoes.rb
>> - spec/swing_shoes/*
>> - spec/white_shoes/*
>> - spec/todo
>> - LEARNING_PJF
>> - Guardfile
>> - README.rdoc
>> - rspec.readme
>> - swing-shoooes*
>>
>>
>> Move:
>>
>> - images/ -> samples/images/
>> - sounds/ -> samples/sounds/
>> - lib/shoes/swt_shoes -> lib/shoes/swt
>> - lib/*.jar, lib/log4j/ -> [some place for java libs (lib/support/?)]
>> - testing/* -> samples/
>> - swt-shoooes* -> bin/
>>
>>
>> What do you think?
>>
>> Eric
>>
>>
>

Re: [shoes] Shoes 4

From:
Eric Watson
Date:
2012-05-24 @ 15:27
On May 24, 2012, at 10:11 AM, David Eastman wrote:

> I'll try to run my stuff (a game) with brown shoes and see what is 
missing right now. Which points to the need for a how-to section in the 
README. 

Definitely we need a how-to section in the README. You can totally give 
your game a try, but it is unlikely that it will work yet. We have only 
basic implementations of buttons, colors, flows, sounds, stroke, fill, and
shapes so far. It is not nearly to the level of functionality that Purple 
Shoes has (yet!).

But we have also written specifications for all of the behavior we have 
implemented. And discovered lots of Shoes quirks along the way. Part of 
the goal is to uncover hidden behaviors and make sure they are sane.

Eric

Re: [shoes] Shoes 4

From:
David Eastman
Date:
2012-05-24 @ 17:29
Yes, Shoes is full of quirks - part of the magic, and part of the problem.

I will be persist in reminding the shoes4 forum what isn't working, so at
least @ashbb can relax now :-)

On Thu, May 24, 2012 at 4:27 PM, Eric Watson <wasnotrice@gmail.com> wrote:

>
> On May 24, 2012, at 10:11 AM, David Eastman wrote:
>
> > I'll try to run my stuff (a game) with brown shoes and see what is
> missing right now. Which points to the need for a how-to section in the
> README.
>
> Definitely we need a how-to section in the README. You can totally give
> your game a try, but it is unlikely that it will work yet. We have only
> basic implementations of buttons, colors, flows, sounds, stroke, fill, and
> shapes so far. It is not nearly to the level of functionality that Purple
> Shoes has (yet!).
>
> But we have also written specifications for all of the behavior we have
> implemented. And discovered lots of Shoes quirks along the way. Part of the
> goal is to uncover hidden behaviors and make sure they are sane.
>
> Eric
>

Re: [shoes] Shoes 4

From:
Peter Fitzgibbons
Date:
2012-05-24 @ 18:07
When you find issues please Please PLEASE create a Github Issue.

It's waaayyy easier for us to discuss issues in that context.

Shoes 4 On!

Peter Fitzgibbons
(847) 859-9550
Email: peter.fitzgibbons@gmail.com
IM GTalk: peter.fitzgibbons
IM AOL: peter.fitzgibbons@gmail.com


On Thu, May 24, 2012 at 12:29 PM, David Eastman <deastman1@gmail.com> wrote:

> Yes, Shoes is full of quirks - part of the magic, and part of the problem.
>
> I will be persist in reminding the shoes4 forum what isn't working, so at
> least @ashbb can relax now :-)
>
>
> On Thu, May 24, 2012 at 4:27 PM, Eric Watson <wasnotrice@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>>
>> On May 24, 2012, at 10:11 AM, David Eastman wrote:
>>
>> > I'll try to run my stuff (a game) with brown shoes and see what is
>> missing right now. Which points to the need for a how-to section in the
>> README.
>>
>> Definitely we need a how-to section in the README. You can totally give
>> your game a try, but it is unlikely that it will work yet. We have only
>> basic implementations of buttons, colors, flows, sounds, stroke, fill, and
>> shapes so far. It is not nearly to the level of functionality that Purple
>> Shoes has (yet!).
>>
>> But we have also written specifications for all of the behavior we have
>> implemented. And discovered lots of Shoes quirks along the way. Part of the
>> goal is to uncover hidden behaviors and make sure they are sane.
>>
>> Eric
>>
>
>

Re: [shoes] Shoes 4

From:
David Eastman
Date:
2012-05-24 @ 18:30
I'm already following the repo.

On Thu, May 24, 2012 at 7:07 PM, Peter Fitzgibbons <
peter.fitzgibbons@gmail.com> wrote:

> When you find issues please Please PLEASE create a Github Issue.
>
> It's waaayyy easier for us to discuss issues in that context.
>
> Shoes 4 On!
>
> Peter Fitzgibbons
> (847) 859-9550
> Email: peter.fitzgibbons@gmail.com
> IM GTalk: peter.fitzgibbons
> IM AOL: peter.fitzgibbons@gmail.com
>
>
> On Thu, May 24, 2012 at 12:29 PM, David Eastman <deastman1@gmail.com>wrote:
>
>> Yes, Shoes is full of quirks - part of the magic, and part of the problem.
>>
>> I will be persist in reminding the shoes4 forum what isn't working, so at
>> least @ashbb can relax now :-)
>>
>>
>> On Thu, May 24, 2012 at 4:27 PM, Eric Watson <wasnotrice@gmail.com>wrote:
>>
>>>
>>> On May 24, 2012, at 10:11 AM, David Eastman wrote:
>>>
>>> > I'll try to run my stuff (a game) with brown shoes and see what is
>>> missing right now. Which points to the need for a how-to section in the
>>> README.
>>>
>>> Definitely we need a how-to section in the README. You can totally give
>>> your game a try, but it is unlikely that it will work yet. We have only
>>> basic implementations of buttons, colors, flows, sounds, stroke, fill, and
>>> shapes so far. It is not nearly to the level of functionality that Purple
>>> Shoes has (yet!).
>>>
>>> But we have also written specifications for all of the behavior we have
>>> implemented. And discovered lots of Shoes quirks along the way. Part of the
>>> goal is to uncover hidden behaviors and make sure they are sane.
>>>
>>> Eric
>>>
>>
>>
>

Re: [shoes] Shoes 4

From:
Peter Fitzgibbons
Date:
2012-05-24 @ 14:47
Explain to me why you want to re-start from ground-zero?
Is this a learning exercise on your part?

Peter Fitzgibbons
(847) 859-9550
Email: peter.fitzgibbons@gmail.com
IM GTalk: peter.fitzgibbons
IM AOL: peter.fitzgibbons@gmail.com


On Thu, May 24, 2012 at 9:27 AM, ashbb <ashbbb@gmail.com> wrote:

> Hi Peter,
>
>
> > Ashbb, any problem with forking from BrownShoes into shoes/shoes4 ?
> Oh, is it possible?
> If yes, I have no problem. I just want to
> https://github.com/shoes/shoes4.git repo.
>
> But after forking, I'd like to clean up first.
> Meaning is:
> - delete all directories and files except spec
> - re-write README
>
> If you don't want deleting all, it's okay making a new branch. ;-)
>
> ashbb
>

Re: [shoes] Shoes 4

From:
David Eastman
Date:
2012-05-23 @ 14:49
I'm going to agree with start from scratch - (my views are observational
only however)

If it is obvious that Shoes 4 is just going to be Brown/SWT then they can
be merged, but I suspect ashbb has picked up some useful fu from his purple
work - that I'm trying to use to replace a red shoes game now - and should
be allowed to forge some initial progress.

I think the mult-coloured shoes has really been beneficial in stopping
shoes being trapped down some dogma hole.


On Wed, May 23, 2012 at 3:04 PM, Peter Fitzgibbons <
peter.fitzgibbons@gmail.com> wrote:

> How' bout you tell what concerns you have with the current Brown/SWT, and
> we'll create tickets for work?
> I'm perfectly fine with calling Brown/SWT "Shoes 4"
>
> Let's not splinter.
>
> Shoes On
> Peter Fitzgibbons
> (847) 859-9550
> Email: peter.fitzgibbons@gmail.com
> IM GTalk: peter.fitzgibbons
> IM AOL: peter.fitzgibbons@gmail.com
>
>
>
> On Wed, May 23, 2012 at 7:15 AM, ashbb <ashbbb@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>> Hi Peter, Eric and folks,
>>
>> I'd like to start a new project: Shoes 4
>>
>> After _why had gone, we've tried many colored Shoes projects, i.e. red,
>> blue, brown, green, purple, orange, etc.
>>
>> I think that we needed all of them to get experience.
>> And now came to start Shoes 4 project. :)
>>
>> My thought:
>> - Programming Language: JRuby
>> - Runtime Dependencies: SWT
>> - Name of Gem: shoes
>> - Tests: ShoesSpec
>>
>> I know that there is already BrownShoes/SWT project.
>> But I'd like to start from scratch.
>> Of course, we can use all of our experience and codes we already have. ;-)
>>
>> Thoughts?
>>
>> ashbb
>>
>
>

Re: [shoes] Shoes 4

From:
Steve Klabnik
Date:
2012-05-23 @ 15:02
I'm happy with whatever, as long as something is actually decided. ;)

Whatever everyone wants, I'm gonna try to be more actively involved
with it this time. This thread (and the end of the last one) has made
me feel a bit better about it all.

Re: [shoes] Shoes 4

From:
Eric Watson
Date:
2012-05-23 @ 15:07
On May 23, 2012, at 9:04 AM, Peter Fitzgibbons 
<peter.fitzgibbons@gmail.com> wrote:

> Let's not splinter.

I agree—we will be more successful working together. And I also agree that
what ashbb described as Shoes 4 sounds a lot like brown shoes.

However, I don't think it's fair to say that ashbb is proposing a new 
"splinter" project (he is proposing the opposite), or even that brown 
shoes is the de facto standard. After all, it only has two committers, and
can't (yet) even run any interesting apps ;)

Let's have a bit more conversation. My thoughts: 

I do believe that brown shoes is the kind of thing we should be aiming 
for, and I would also rather revise the existing code than start 
completely fresh.

However, I have also come to believe that there are some serious problems 
with the architecture of brown shoes that need to be considered. This 
might be a good opportunity to discuss those problems and incorporate any 
ideas, concerns, or desires others have for a Shoes 4.

Ashbb, why do you prefer to start over rather than working from the base 
of brown shoes? Let's discuss. 

Eric

Re: [shoes] Shoes 4

From:
Eduardo Argollo
Date:
2012-05-23 @ 15:54
Hi there,

I am not an active member of this community. I really enjoy shoes but 
got really out as I started to face lots of problems with red shoes 
executions. I turned to use green shoes but I realized that my apps did 
not work the same way (not the very same API or look&feel, widgets, 
highlights, ...) on green shoes than it used with red shoes.

I was kinda frustrated when I needed to convert one of my beautiful 
shoes application to pure JRuby.

So, as an outsider that can not manage to put time on helping developing 
shoes (I have all the repo's here but I always get outdated) I really 
got a great feeling when I saw this thread.

Did you guys think on having the Shoes API well defined so that 
independently on the color, every shoes application would behave the 
same way? Is this what you intend with ShoesSpec? What about a 
separation what is shoes-color-independent from what is shoes 
implementation dependent?

I guess there was some sort of discussions in this direction before, right?

I agree with the re-writing of brown shoes if this means to rethink 
things like that, which would be helpful for all the other implementations.

I actually kinda not like that much so many flavors, not because of the 
concept of the flavors/colors itself which is really amazing, but 
because we do not concentrate efforts on having a fully implemented and 
functional shoes with packaging and all. Once the amount of active 
developers is small, it would be maybe better to concentrate on that 
goal first and later on make the shoes rainbow in a better structured 
environment.

Just sharing some food for thoughts though I don't feel like I deserve 
to be heard once I am more of a listener than anything else.

By the way, do we have continuous integration/compilation and unit 
testing? It would be a great chance to set it all up, if not.

Regards,
Eduardo

PS.: Shoes is really great! :-)



On 05/23/2012 05:07 PM, Eric Watson wrote:
> On May 23, 2012, at 9:04 AM, Peter 
Fitzgibbons<peter.fitzgibbons@gmail.com>  wrote:
>
>> Let's not splinter.
> I agree—we will be more successful working together. And I also agree 
that what ashbb described as Shoes 4 sounds a lot like brown shoes.
>
> However, I don't think it's fair to say that ashbb is proposing a new 
"splinter" project (he is proposing the opposite), or even that brown 
shoes is the de facto standard. After all, it only has two committers, and
can't (yet) even run any interesting apps ;)
>
> Let's have a bit more conversation. My thoughts:
>
> I do believe that brown shoes is the kind of thing we should be aiming 
for, and I would also rather revise the existing code than start 
completely fresh.
>
> However, I have also come to believe that there are some serious 
problems with the architecture of brown shoes that need to be considered. 
This might be a good opportunity to discuss those problems and incorporate
any ideas, concerns, or desires others have for a Shoes 4.
>
> Ashbb, why do you prefer to start over rather than working from the base
of brown shoes? Let's discuss.
>
> Eric
>

Re: [shoes] Shoes 4

From:
Steve Klabnik
Date:
2012-05-23 @ 16:17
> I was kinda frustrated when I needed to convert one of my beautiful
> shoes application to pure JRuby.

What issues were you running into with JRuby?


> Did you guys think on having the Shoes API well defined so that
> independently on the color, every shoes application would behave the
> same way? Is this what you intend with ShoesSpec? What about a
> separation what is shoes-color-independent from what is shoes
> implementation dependent?

That is the intention. The different colors are essentially back-ends
to the same basic logic and interface.


> By the way, do we have continuous integration/compilation and unit
> testing? It would be a great chance to set it all up, if not.

Travis is going for most flavors of Shoes, I think.

Re: [shoes] Shoes 4

From:
Eduardo Argollo
Date:
2012-05-23 @ 16:23
Hi Steve,

I was facing issues with RedShoes and also it lacked something I really 
needed that was to have the application at the system tray.

My program now on JRuby works really fine and does the deal. But, it is 
far less elegant and enjoyable to program as it would be if developed in 
shoes which was the platform I started with.

The cool thing of JRuby was that I was able to package it neatly and 
distribute it to some of my friends and classmates. Java is almost 
everywhere. Nevertheless, I really had a hard time to make the interface.

Thanks for the interest and for the reply.

Eduardo.

PS.: Just for info, the app is https://github.com/eargollo/Quizzer

On 05/23/2012 06:17 PM, Steve Klabnik wrote:
>> I was kinda frustrated when I needed to convert one of my beautiful
>> shoes application to pure JRuby.
> What issues were you running into with JRuby?
>
>
>> Did you guys think on having the Shoes API well defined so that
>> independently on the color, every shoes application would behave the
>> same way? Is this what you intend with ShoesSpec? What about a
>> separation what is shoes-color-independent from what is shoes
>> implementation dependent?
> That is the intention. The different colors are essentially back-ends
> to the same basic logic and interface.
>
>
>> By the way, do we have continuous integration/compilation and unit
>> testing? It would be a great chance to set it all up, if not.
> Travis is going for most flavors of Shoes, I think.

Re: [shoes] Shoes 4

From:
Steve Klabnik
Date:
2012-05-23 @ 17:11
Ahh, okay. We're confusing some terminology here. Shoes is just a big
framework for Ruby, so you're always using Ruby, even when you use
Shoes. ;)

> My program now on JRuby works really fine and does the deal. But, it is 
far less elegant and enjoyable to program as it would be if developed in 
shoes which was the platform I started with.
>
> The cool thing of JRuby was that I was able to package it neatly and 
distribute it to some of my friends and classmates. Java is almost 
everywhere. Nevertheless, I really had a hard time to make the interface.

Wait, now I'm confused. So you're saying you used Swing or SWT instead
of Shoes? You weren't using brown or purple Shoes, which is Shoes on
the JVM? Maybe that's where my confusion lies.

Re: [shoes] Shoes 4

From:
Eduardo Argollo
Date:
2012-05-23 @ 17:11
Yep. I started with Shoes but could not get there and I was forced to 
move to pure JRuby. Not brown nor purple shoes. Just ruby on the JVM.

The thing is that I would really appreciate to have it back to Shoes and 
I basically agree on Shoes 4 being on that direction.

On 05/23/2012 07:11 PM, Steve Klabnik wrote:
> Ahh, okay. We're confusing some terminology here. Shoes is just a big
> framework for Ruby, so you're always using Ruby, even when you use
> Shoes. ;)
>
>> My program now on JRuby works really fine and does the deal. But, it is
far less elegant and enjoyable to program as it would be if developed in 
shoes which was the platform I started with.
>>
>> The cool thing of JRuby was that I was able to package it neatly and 
distribute it to some of my friends and classmates. Java is almost 
everywhere. Nevertheless, I really had a hard time to make the interface.
> Wait, now I'm confused. So you're saying you used Swing or SWT instead
> of Shoes? You weren't using brown or purple Shoes, which is Shoes on
> the JVM? Maybe that's where my confusion lies.

Re: [shoes] Shoes 4

From:
David Eastman
Date:
2012-05-23 @ 17:28
OK, I can reduce your fears - purple shoes (for eample) is ruby, shoes,
with a backend of SWT.

I also had to stop using red because of the Windowing reliability issues,
as well as the install issues.

I'm working with Ashbb to replace my red with purple, but its still ruby
calling shoes. Otherwise I'd use something completely different.

If things go well, I don't see any java or SWT whatsoever, except the
packaging.

On Wed, May 23, 2012 at 6:11 PM, Eduardo Argollo <eargollo@gmail.com> wrote:

> Yep. I started with Shoes but could not get there and I was forced to
> move to pure JRuby. Not brown nor purple shoes. Just ruby on the JVM.
>
> The thing is that I would really appreciate to have it back to Shoes and
> I basically agree on Shoes 4 being on that direction.
>
> On 05/23/2012 07:11 PM, Steve Klabnik wrote:
> > Ahh, okay. We're confusing some terminology here. Shoes is just a big
> > framework for Ruby, so you're always using Ruby, even when you use
> > Shoes. ;)
> >
> >> My program now on JRuby works really fine and does the deal. But, it is
> far less elegant and enjoyable to program as it would be if developed in
> shoes which was the platform I started with.
> >>
> >> The cool thing of JRuby was that I was able to package it neatly and
> distribute it to some of my friends and classmates. Java is almost
> everywhere. Nevertheless, I really had a hard time to make the interface.
> > Wait, now I'm confused. So you're saying you used Swing or SWT instead
> > of Shoes? You weren't using brown or purple Shoes, which is Shoes on
> > the JVM? Maybe that's where my confusion lies.
>

Re: [shoes] Shoes 4

From:
Peter Fitzgibbons
Date:
2012-05-23 @ 15:53
Details, please folks.
I'd rather start building tickets and discussing them individually and in
relationship than continue to conjecture here on the ML
This is a good location for dialogue, and a poor location for task
organization.

Can you each itemize your concerns over Brown/SWT and your reflections of
what's positive about Purple?

Each of you know that starting from scratch is really hard.  Lets get some
issues in the air and start finding agreement.

Shoes On
Peter Fitzgibbons
(847) 859-9550
Email: peter.fitzgibbons@gmail.com
IM GTalk: peter.fitzgibbons
IM AOL: peter.fitzgibbons@gmail.com


On Wed, May 23, 2012 at 10:07 AM, Eric Watson <wasnotrice@gmail.com> wrote:

> On May 23, 2012, at 9:04 AM, Peter Fitzgibbons <
> peter.fitzgibbons@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > Let's not splinter.
>
> I agree—we will be more successful working together. And I also agree that
> what ashbb described as Shoes 4 sounds a lot like brown shoes.
>
> However, I don't think it's fair to say that ashbb is proposing a new
> "splinter" project (he is proposing the opposite), or even that brown shoes
> is the de facto standard. After all, it only has two committers, and can't
> (yet) even run any interesting apps ;)
>
> Let's have a bit more conversation. My thoughts:
>
> I do believe that brown shoes is the kind of thing we should be aiming
> for, and I would also rather revise the existing code than start completely
> fresh.
>
> However, I have also come to believe that there are some serious problems
> with the architecture of brown shoes that need to be considered. This might
> be a good opportunity to discuss those problems and incorporate any ideas,
> concerns, or desires others have for a Shoes 4.
>
> Ashbb, why do you prefer to start over rather than working from the base
> of brown shoes? Let's discuss.
>
> Eric
>
>

Re: [shoes] Shoes 4

From:
Eric Watson
Date:
2012-05-23 @ 17:28
On May 23, 2012, at 10:53 AM, Peter Fitzgibbons wrote:

> Details, please folks.

My questions are just the same ones I emailed to you a few weeks ago. 
Still haven't heard anything :P

> I'd rather start building tickets and discussing them individually and 
in relationship than continue to conjecture here on the ML
> This is a good location for dialogue, and a poor location for task organization.


Totally. I think this is why you are finding that people are trying to 
speak generally in this first round of the conversation, without getting 
into tremendous detail. Remember, ashbb created this thread to discuss his
idea of a Shoes 4. You have already decided that brown shoes is the way to
get there. I am inclined to agree. But it sounds to me like ashbb and 
David have not reached that conclusion yet, which places some of the 
burden of communication on us :)

Not everyone in the community feels that brown shoes has already been 
anointed "the next version of Shoes" (which is why it's so great that we 
are having this discussion now). For that reason, it's unreasonable to 
expect people to be submitting their concerns as issues on brown shoes.

> Can you each itemize your concerns over Brown/SWT and your reflections 
of what's positive about Purple?

Happily :) Let's be clear, though, that nobody has yet suggested growing 
Shoes 4 out of purple shoes, so this comparison could be misleading.

I'll just paste what I emailed before. Note that these were conceived as 
specific concerns about how to improve the design of brown shoes. You 
probably have to work with the code to see the problems. That's why I 
originally thought the ML wasn't the place for this discussion, but things
change ;)

On May 2, 2012, at 2:39 PM, Eric Watson wrote:

> I have a few architecture-related thoughts to share. Since I haven't 
caught you on IRC, and this doesn't seem like ML material, I'm going to 
mention them here without much explanation, in hopes that we have more 
discussion soon.
> 
> 1. We should consider giving the Shoes classes gui objects (@gui) rather
than mixing in gui methods. Testing is too hard (listen to the tests!) and
the inheritance chain is incorrect (a method defined in Shoes::Button 
overrides a method defined in SwtShoes::Button).
> 
> 2. The spec setup is really quite nice. I would like to see us develop a
clearer sense of what group of specs is spec'ing what. Should there be 
white_shoes specs? What are they specifying? Can we do better with mocks? 
Should the Swt/Swing classes also run the Shoes specs as integration 
testing? This kind of thing. I would be willing to help develop this and 
write guidelines for new contributors.
> 
> 3. How should we specify the interface for future backend 
implementations (Qt, etc)? I would like to see this be as clear as 
possible. This is part of the reason I am exploring a browser 
implementation, to consider how the separation works in a different 
environment. Is the interface simply the white shoes interface? Should it 
be Shoes modules that must be written for each implementation? Is it a 
single object for each framework that exposes a specified set of methods?


Brown Shoes Pros:

- separation of DSL from GUI implementation code
- test-first coding
- test suite
- very simple classes and methods

Brown Shoes Cons:

- complex mixin chain
- lots of classes

Purple Shoes Pros:

- works much better ;)
- fewer files: organized more by concern than class

Purple Shoes Cons:

- no separation of DSL from GUI implementation code
- no tests
- more complex methods
- more difficult to locate methods (Mod1, Mod2?)

Shoooes on!

Eric

Re: [shoes] Shoes 4

From:
Peter Fitzgibbons
Date:
2012-05-23 @ 17:52
I'll start off by acknowledging my defensive response to "starting over".
 "Starting over" is exactly what BrownShoes is... and I got a
baby-with-the-bathwater vibe from the new suggestion of "starting over".

Also, remember all that I discussed with Steve the intentions of "Starting
Over" as follows :
Generally, BrownShoes has these goals:

   - Implement a specification for the Shoes API.  This is beyond the
   samples/ folder, and is intended to provide to us a regression suite for
   the basis of future bug-fixing and API mods.  The spec will also allow the
   modular implementation of the "colors"
   - Implement a "pluggable framework" in order to allow the development of
   "colored shoes".  The intent is to allow alternate "backends' (GUI drivers)
   to implement shoes, while all operating behind the canonical Shoes API.
   - Correct the current implementation issues with RedShoes.  As the OS's
   have advanced in age, the deployment model originally implemented for
   RedShoes has become a train-engine running on rusty rails (no pun or
   intended reference).  Some implementation of Shoes-on-JRuby is looking like
   a good alternative, as the Java community has handily covered the
   cross-platform implementation and installation issues.


On Wed, May 23, 2012 at 12:28 PM, Eric Watson <wasnotrice@gmail.com> wrote:

>
> On May 23, 2012, at 10:53 AM, Peter Fitzgibbons wrote:
>
>  I am inclined to agree. But it sounds to me like ashbb and David have not
> reached that conclusion yet, which places some of the burden of
> communication on us :)

Understood.  A teaching opportunity at hand.


> Not everyone in the community feels that brown shoes has already been
> anointed "the next version of Shoes" (which is why it's so great that we
> are having this discussion now). For that reason, it's unreasonable to
> expect people to be submitting their concerns as issues on brown shoes.
>
Hmm... consider this against the base goals of Shoes-rewrite above.

>
> > 1. We should consider giving the Shoes classes gui objects (@gui) rather
> than mixing in gui methods. Testing is too hard (listen to the tests!) and
> the inheritance chain is incorrect (a method defined in Shoes::Button
> overrides a method defined in SwtShoes::Button).
>
I'm not positive I understand fully, though I get the idea.  In a separate
thread maybe you could write a skeletal example of "correct" implementation?


> > 2. The spec setup is really quite nice. I would like to see us develop a
> clearer sense of what group of specs is spec'ing what. Should there be
> white_shoes specs? What are they specifying? Can we do better with mocks?
> Should the Swt/Swing classes also run the Shoes specs as integration
> testing? This kind of thing. I would be willing to help develop this and
> write guidelines for new contributors.
>
After discussions of the past 1-2 weeks, it seems that the specs named
"WhiteShoes" are the beginnings of what we have been calling "ShoesSpec".
 There is a question in my mind of how to separate the Shoes-API from the
internal Shoes-Plugin-API, which is required implementation for a plugin.

> >
> > 3. How should we specify the interface for future backend
> implementations (Qt, etc)? I would like to see this be as clear as
> possible. This is part of the reason I am exploring a browser
> implementation, to consider how the separation works in a different
> environment. Is the interface simply the white shoes interface? Should it
> be Shoes modules that must be written for each implementation? Is it a
> single object for each framework that exposes a specified set of methods?
>
Yep, as #2, WhiteShoes => ShoesSpec.  Like you, I have questions on the
"proper" specification of the Shoes-Plugin-API.   Maybe flipping the
responsibilities, making a Shoes-Plugin a "client" of the Shoes-Plugin-API,
where the Shoes-Plugin's "client" endpoints are all listeners?  I feel like
there is surely a better description of the responsibilities/interaction?


>
>
> Brown Shoes Pros:
>
> - separation of DSL from GUI implementation code
> - test-first coding
> - test suite
> - very simple classes and methods
>
> Brown Shoes Cons:
>
> - complex mixin chain
> - lots of classes
>
> Purple Shoes Pros:
>
> - works much better ;)
> - fewer files: organized more by concern than class
>
> Purple Shoes Cons:
>
> - no separation of DSL from GUI implementation code
> - no tests
> - more complex methods
> - more difficult to locate methods (Mod1, Mod2?)
>
> Consider the pros/cons above against the Shoes-rewrite goals.


> Shoooes on!
>
> Eric
>
>
Peter Fitzgibbons
(847) 859-9550
Email: peter.fitzgibbons@gmail.com
IM GTalk: peter.fitzgibbons
IM AOL: peter.fitzgibbons@gmail.com

Re: [shoes] Shoes 4

From:
Eric Watson
Date:
2012-05-23 @ 19:04
On May 23, 2012, at 12:52 PM, Peter Fitzgibbons wrote:

> I'll start off by acknowledging my defensive response to "starting 
over".  "Starting over" is exactly what BrownShoes is... and I got a 
baby-with-the-bathwater vibe from the new suggestion of "starting over".

Nobody likes to feel as if they are being asked to throw out their baby :)

> Also, remember all that I discussed with Steve the intentions of 
"Starting Over" as follows

I totally agree with the results of your discussion, but I think the fact 
that this was something that you discussed with Steve might explain why 
not everyone is on the same page.

> > 1. We should consider giving the Shoes classes gui objects (@gui) 
rather than mixing in gui methods. Testing is too hard (listen to the 
tests!) and the inheritance chain is incorrect (a method defined in 
Shoes::Button overrides a method defined in SwtShoes::Button).
> I'm not positive I understand fully, though I get the idea.  In a 
separate thread maybe you could write a skeletal example of "correct" 
implementation?

Actually, I think I'll make this an issue on github ;)

>  > 2. The spec setup is really quite nice. I would like to see us 
develop a clearer sense of what group of specs is spec'ing what. Should 
there be white_shoes specs? What are they specifying? Can we do better 
with mocks? Should the Swt/Swing classes also run the Shoes specs as 
integration testing? This kind of thing. I would be willing to help 
develop this and write guidelines for new contributors.
> After discussions of the past 1-2 weeks, it seems that the specs named 
"WhiteShoes" are the beginnings of what we have been calling "ShoesSpec".
There is a question in my mind of how to separate the Shoes-API from the 
internal Shoes-Plugin-API, which is required implementation for a plugin.

The specs that should become ShoesSpec are the ones in spec/shoes, I 
think. They are ones that test the Shoes DSL. White Shoes is a bit of an 
enigma. Essentially, White Shoes is a dummy GUI backend. 
It's more of an empty example of what a GUI backend would look like. Or 
perhaps an example of the simplest possible way to implement a GUI 
backend. What I'm asking above is similar to "Should we extract the 
spec/shoes specs to be run on any implementation and reconsider the 
usefulness of white shoes"

> > 3. How should we specify the interface for future backend 
implementations (Qt, etc)? I would like to see this be as clear as 
possible. This is part of the reason I am exploring a browser 
implementation, to consider how the separation works in a different 
environment. Is the interface simply the white shoes interface? Should it 
be Shoes modules that must be written for each implementation? Is it a 
single object for each framework that exposes a specified set of methods?
> Yep, as #2, WhiteShoes => ShoesSpec.  Like you, I have questions on the 
"proper" specification of the Shoes-Plugin-API.   Maybe flipping the 
responsibilities, making a Shoes-Plugin a "client" of the 
Shoes-Plugin-API, where the Shoes-Plugin's "client" endpoints are all 
listeners?  I feel like there is surely a better description of the 
responsibilities/interaction?

Yes, I have been calling it a "backend", but I don't like that much 
either. I have also considered the possibility of adding before_ and 
after_ hooks to the DSL methods, so that "backends" could hook into the 
system that way. It is a good time to think about this.

Re: [shoes] Shoes 4

From:
Steve Klabnik
Date:
2012-05-23 @ 19:08
I think there's been some confusion between two different things. We need:

1) Executable specs for Shoes
2) A way to write executable specs for Shoes apps

These two things are intertwined, as you'd seemingly write specs for
shoes apps to test Shoes itself.

shoes-cucumber and shoes-mocks were an experiment in being able to
test Shoes apps independently of Shoes. I hope that they do that
someday. But we also need tests for Shoes itself that confirms what
Shoes is doing.

I think "White Shoes" has elements of both of these, and is confusing,
so I'd rather see "ShoesSpec" be used to describe the tests we're
writing for Shoes, and shoes-mocks being what it is today.

Re: [shoes] Shoes 4

From:
Eric Watson
Date:
2012-05-23 @ 19:38
On May 23, 2012, at 2:08 PM, Steve Klabnik wrote:

> I think there's been some confusion between two different things. We need:
> 
> 1) Executable specs for Shoes
> 2) A way to write executable specs for Shoes apps

From my experience with brown shoes, I would say that it will be totally 
possible to achieve 1) through basic testing practices. It will probably 
also possible to achieve 2) without the need for a special project (i.e. 
using basic mocking instead). I think we will end up with better software 
if we develop it from the beginning to be intriniscally testable.

I did not feel this way when shoes-mocks and shoes-cucumber were created :)

Re: [shoes] Shoes 4

From:
Steve Klabnik
Date:
2012-05-23 @ 19:44
> From my experience with brown shoes, I would say that it will be totally
possible to achieve 1) through basic testing practices.

Agreed.

>  It will probably also possible to achieve 2) without the need for a 
special project (i.e. using basic mocking instead).

Sure, but then you have to do a lot of work. I'm thinking like
Capybara: yes, you could just do it yourself, but I bet there are a
lot of patterns that will recur, and making helpers will be useful.

> I think we will end up with better software if we develop it from the 
beginning to be intriniscally testable.

Agreed. :)

Re: [shoes] Shoes 4

From:
Eric Watson
Date:
2012-05-23 @ 20:00
On May 23, 2012, at 2:44 PM, Steve Klabnik wrote:

> Sure, but then you have to do a lot of work. I'm thinking like
> Capybara: yes, you could just do it yourself, but I bet there are a
> lot of patterns that will recur, and making helpers will be useful.

Oh, I totally misread that. shoes-mocks is not for testing Shoes. It's for
testing Shoes apps. Exactly what you wrote. Whoops :)

Yeah, I would love to have an easy way to test my Shoes apps!


Re: [shoes] Shoes 4

From:
James Gifford
Date:
2012-05-23 @ 20:03
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
Hash: SHA1

+1 to all this, if we write from the ground up and *ensure* that it's
testable, then we're going to make better software.

Something I'd like to add is that if we do write it, we should
endeavour to write it in GTK3 instead of GTK2 since GTK2 is being
depreciated now that GTK3 is out. Or perhaps i'm missing something, in
which case ignore me. :)
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v1.4.11 (GNU/Linux)
Comment: Using GnuPG with Mozilla - http://enigmail.mozdev.org/

iQEcBAEBAgAGBQJPvUKZAAoJENbAQRq+BvX7onIIAKEC8a8nl3/Yb3UpCn8WHTZ3
aQyr+2YtFkotCJ19mR2Rsp4hPOri9BrmpP5AsVmQ+niI3VP9GnoIYZm6uXlXHzz0
+EJFPIu/30waDuNL3rXOoNa40YXwADqbMZjZdErsvuFEq7D28z1p1whBZcPo5jc3
bzVH3cNKtz5WPMnvg5gTbEQHxq3hXZYq350p1qKafqDb+/i2XZUmb4VcvNmZz/3U
rUAlR0xTFtPATBvIjaW49hu8RzqWThD/d9G677rLNQh9ixNkABQErq2mHA1RQTJj
extzLM+eoL9QONZpdqJRqm8wV283Mh1Om4khFHlEeqr+SOZKJ+BKQ/JcanpD53k=
=Y3Pu
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----

Re: [shoes] Shoes 4

From:
ashbb
Date:
2012-05-24 @ 12:21
Hi James,

> Something I'd like to add is that if we do write it, we should
> endeavour to write it in GTK3 instead of GTK2 since GTK2 is being
> depreciated now that GTK3 is out.
Okay, if the GTK3 gem is out, let's try!
Off topic for now, though. ;-)

ashbb

Re: [shoes] Shoes 4

From:
David Eastman
Date:
2012-05-23 @ 21:02
I haven't seen anything to disagree with here. I'm not keen to contribute
further until @ashbb comes back; for me the purple pros+con bullet point* " -
works much better ;) "* was a massive short term boon.

But testable is the only long term reality - I work with rspec regularly,
and I expect to for a long time to come.

On Wed, May 23, 2012 at 9:03 PM, James Gifford <james@jamesrgifford.com>wrote:

> -----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
> Hash: SHA1
>
> +1 to all this, if we write from the ground up and *ensure* that it's
> testable, then we're going to make better software.
>
> Something I'd like to add is that if we do write it, we should
> endeavour to write it in GTK3 instead of GTK2 since GTK2 is being
> depreciated now that GTK3 is out. Or perhaps i'm missing something, in
> which case ignore me. :)
> -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
> Version: GnuPG v1.4.11 (GNU/Linux)
> Comment: Using GnuPG with Mozilla - http://enigmail.mozdev.org/
>
> iQEcBAEBAgAGBQJPvUKZAAoJENbAQRq+BvX7onIIAKEC8a8nl3/Yb3UpCn8WHTZ3
> aQyr+2YtFkotCJ19mR2Rsp4hPOri9BrmpP5AsVmQ+niI3VP9GnoIYZm6uXlXHzz0
> +EJFPIu/30waDuNL3rXOoNa40YXwADqbMZjZdErsvuFEq7D28z1p1whBZcPo5jc3
> bzVH3cNKtz5WPMnvg5gTbEQHxq3hXZYq350p1qKafqDb+/i2XZUmb4VcvNmZz/3U
> rUAlR0xTFtPATBvIjaW49hu8RzqWThD/d9G677rLNQh9ixNkABQErq2mHA1RQTJj
> extzLM+eoL9QONZpdqJRqm8wV283Mh1Om4khFHlEeqr+SOZKJ+BKQ/JcanpD53k=
> =Y3Pu
> -----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
>

Re: [shoes] Shoes 4

From:
Peter Fitzgibbons
Date:
2012-05-23 @ 23:43
For those of you interested/committed to working this codebase into the
future, please checkout both repos, inspect the codebases, and tell me what
your gut feel is on wether Purple or Brown/SWT will be easier to refactor
into a Test-First implementation.

FWIW, Eric and myself have written Brown/SWT from the ground up in
TDD/Test-First fashion... we are already Test-First.

Shoes On
Peter Fitzgibbons
(847) 859-9550
Email: peter.fitzgibbons@gmail.com
IM GTalk: peter.fitzgibbons
IM AOL: peter.fitzgibbons@gmail.com


On Wed, May 23, 2012 at 4:02 PM, David Eastman <deastman1@gmail.com> wrote:

> I haven't seen anything to disagree with here. I'm not keen to contribute
> further until @ashbb comes back; for me the purple pros+con bullet point*" -
> works much better ;) "* was a massive short term boon.
>
> But testable is the only long term reality - I work with rspec regularly,
> and I expect to for a long time to come.
>
>
> On Wed, May 23, 2012 at 9:03 PM, James Gifford <james@jamesrgifford.com>wrote:
>
>> -----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
>> Hash: SHA1
>>
>> +1 to all this, if we write from the ground up and *ensure* that it's
>> testable, then we're going to make better software.
>>
>> Something I'd like to add is that if we do write it, we should
>> endeavour to write it in GTK3 instead of GTK2 since GTK2 is being
>> depreciated now that GTK3 is out. Or perhaps i'm missing something, in
>> which case ignore me. :)
>> -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
>> Version: GnuPG v1.4.11 (GNU/Linux)
>> Comment: Using GnuPG with Mozilla - http://enigmail.mozdev.org/
>>
>> iQEcBAEBAgAGBQJPvUKZAAoJENbAQRq+BvX7onIIAKEC8a8nl3/Yb3UpCn8WHTZ3
>> aQyr+2YtFkotCJ19mR2Rsp4hPOri9BrmpP5AsVmQ+niI3VP9GnoIYZm6uXlXHzz0
>> +EJFPIu/30waDuNL3rXOoNa40YXwADqbMZjZdErsvuFEq7D28z1p1whBZcPo5jc3
>> bzVH3cNKtz5WPMnvg5gTbEQHxq3hXZYq350p1qKafqDb+/i2XZUmb4VcvNmZz/3U
>> rUAlR0xTFtPATBvIjaW49hu8RzqWThD/d9G677rLNQh9ixNkABQErq2mHA1RQTJj
>> extzLM+eoL9QONZpdqJRqm8wV283Mh1Om4khFHlEeqr+SOZKJ+BKQ/JcanpD53k=
>> =Y3Pu
>> -----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
>>
>
>

Re: [shoes] Shoes 4

From:
ashbb
Date:
2012-05-24 @ 12:11
Hi all,

Thank you for the discussion. Sorry for my poor explanation. :-P

I agree,
- Let's not splinter. We'll be more successful working together.
- Start from the base of brown shoes.

So, from now on, let's call it "Shoes 4".

AND in order to work together in one project and show clearly,
I'd like to open a new repo "shoes/shoes4" on github. ;-)

and then,
- write README for Shoes 4 project
- copy something (or everything if reasonable :)) from brown shoes repo

I agree to do test-first coding in Shoes 4 project, because I want to make
ShoesSpec (i.e. executable specs for Shoes).

Now, there are differences between current brown shoes and purple shoes.
Thanks to Eric for listing up pros and cons. :)
I have a few questions about the current brown shoes architecture.
So, I'd like to discuss about them in the new Shoes 4 project.

How about this proposal?

ashbb

Re: [shoes] Shoes 4

From:
J. Kaiden
Date:
2012-05-23 @ 23:35
hey all,

  i'm a bit late to the party - but i'm really excited to see this thread...

  i'd like to add a big +1 for Eduardo's post and sentiment - i'm afraid
that i won't be of too much use in actual development (i'm still wrapping
my head around java and jruby) but as an avid and psyched 'user' of shoes,
i couldn't agree more that major goals should be that

  "independently of the color, every shoes application should behave the same
way"

  ...and to

  "concentrate efforts on having a fully implemented and functional shoes
with packaging and all"

  i'm trying to get my chops up to be more of a help in development, rather
than just saying "wouldn't it be nice if..." and "why don't you guys...?"
 i know that's not terribly useful.  that said, maybe sometimes the forest
gets lost for the trees - so please just take my comments as those of
someone walking my Shoes through the forest...

  again, and most importantly - i'm very happy to see this thread.  Shoes
rocks.

  let's get our Shoes on...

  - j

Re: [shoes] Shoes 4

From:
Steve Klabnik
Date:
2012-05-23 @ 23:43
>   i'd like to add a big +1 for Eduardo's post and sentiment - i'm afraid
> that i won't be of too much use in actual development (i'm still wrapping my
> head around java and jruby) but as an avid and psyched 'user' of shoes, i
> couldn't agree more that major goals should be that

You actually don't need to do any java to do jruby.



> i know that's not terribly useful.

It actually is terribly useful. Keep it up.