So maybe one initial shape of the thing I want is an application which is a 'graphical shell' but also a Turing-complete language, runtime-manipulable, and where each graphical element has an exact, defined, one-to-one representation as program text.
Conversation
Notices
-
Nate Cull (natecull@mastodon.social)'s status on Friday, 02-Jun-2017 01:12:39 UTC Nate Cull - Hallå Kitteh repeated this.
-
Nate Cull (natecull@mastodon.social)'s status on Friday, 02-Jun-2017 01:14:38 UTC Nate Cull @dredmorbius @enkiv2 Honestly this is what I thought people meant by 'object oriented desktop' back in the OS/2 era and was hugely disappointed that they just meant 'fancy file browser and program launch menu'.
Hallå Kitteh repeated this. -
Nate Cull (natecull@mastodon.social)'s status on Friday, 02-Jun-2017 01:17:58 UTC Nate Cull @enkiv2 @dredmorbius I don't mean 'visual programming language' UNLESS it also has an exact text mode. I want to be able to do and see EVERYTHING in text that I can do and see in graphics. Down to the mouse click.
Hallå Kitteh repeated this. -
Hallå Kitteh (clacke@social.heldscal.la)'s status on Friday, 02-Jun-2017 01:19:05 UTC Hallå Kitteh @natecull @enkiv2 @dredmorbius Very poetic. Still, you do produce your spreadsheet in LibreOffice Calc or equivalent, right? ;-)
Distributions own the desktops. Admittedly, even the best and most caring go off the rails sometimes, but now Ubuntu is coming back to GNOME so it's all good.
No, that doesn't bring us the generic object pipeline, and I want that too, in parallel to good ol unix pipes. GObject Introspection isn't half bad as an interface model, though I admit not having played with it much. I would like to see it or something like it becoming the COM of Linux. DBus would work too, as long as people settle for *something*.