Re: Is it GUI? Or is it IDE?

[Przemek Klosowski]

On 08/28/2012 03:01 AM, Daniel J Sebald wrote:
> On 08/27/2012 12:28 PM, Michael D Godfrey wrote:
> > Has there been enough chance for review to
> > say it is time to make the switch from GUI to IDE?
> >
> > The sooner the better, I would say.
>
> Hasn't been enough feedback yet.  Max?  Carnë?  Jordi?  Others?
>
> There is still an open question from John about what the perceived
> expected nomenclature is for a user interface.
>
> I'll pose a couple more open ended questions:
>
> Does this new interface qualify as an IDE, either now or in the future?
>
> What confusion can be created by choosing either expression?

As an 'other' I always understood the graphical setup that shows up on 
startup is the IDE (Integrated Development Environment). To me this is a 
useful distinction from the generic GUI, which implies that I can write 
my own graphical screens with visual input and output widgets that serve 
my own applications.

Now, my favorite IDE design is to layer a default set of widgets on top 
of a GUI building infrastructure: such initial default set provides a 
basic environment to interact with the interpreter, but it can be 
modified and customized sligtly---or entirely.

Long ago, when Tcl was viable, I used to write Tcl/Tk applications this 
way: there would be a default layout but the final step in the startup 
would read and execute the ~/.apprc file which could totally rearrange 
the application, thanks to the dynamic nature and introspection in Tcl.