Re: GUI design

[Daniel J Sebald]

On 03/28/2012 04:07 AM, Richard Crozier wrote:
> On 28/03/2012 09:55, Daniel J Sebald wrote:
>
> > Guess I'm with Michael on this one.  I don't see the point of aiming for
> > GUI Octave.  The author did a nice job, but the features are somewhat
> > limited.  If one wants a simple IDE for Octave, they've got it--GUI
> > Octave.  The only substance to John's argument is that Octave having
> > it's own IDE will mean that it will automatically be bundled with the
> > Octave package.
>
> But what if the author of GUI Octave decides he no longer wants to
> provide it. There is no source code so it cannot be recreated, there
> would then be no GUI.

Hopefully by time that ever arises Octave maintainers (or an Octave IDE 
maintainers) would have something better.


> > To me, an IDE has to bring something to the table ...
> >
> > Dan
>
> The features you go on to describe are effectively the Matlab IDE which
> has almost all of these them. I would see this as the ultimate target,
> before thinking about surpassing it. To get there is likely to pass
> through the more limited feature set of GUI Octave. i.e.
>
> Nothing =>  GUI Octave =>  Mathworks feature set =>  Improvements

I think what Michael and I are saying is

Nothing => Lay groundwork for GUI/IDE code that can grow => Get the ball 
rolling => When there are a reasonable amount of features on the order 
of GUI Octave, release the inaugural version => Improvements

And the big part is laying the groundwork because the group needs to 
decide on what GUI building utilities and technology to use across 
platforms, so on.  I assume it is across platforms because 1) Robert 
points out an IDE may be the only viable option under Windows, 2) John 
states that Octave needs to still be functional in its current 
form--implying the IDE would also be on unix-based systems.

I know at least once John has stated "I wish I hadn't gone that route" 
with regard to plotting.  The problem is that the GUI Octave direct 
approach could be the same thing:

Nothing => GUI Octave => Dead end => Struggle to advance things for 
years => Startover => Mathworks feature set => Improvements

And again, I point out that one doesn't have to copy the look and feel 
of Mathworks or GUI Octave.  IF there are better ways of organizing and 
presenting things, that would be welcome as I see it.

Maybe it is best to have two GUI/IDE projects:

1) WinOctave: Bare bones IDE elements that only runs under windows with 
a planned mid term end.  This saves having to deal with multi-platform 
in a potentially limiting scenario (i.e., a lot of work for not much 
payout).

2) IDE Octave (a.k.a. IDEO, a play on the word "idea"): Multiplatform, 
feature rich IDE for long term development.

Dan