blinryFeb 19

Remember the "One Laptop Per Child" project, that developed a low-cost computer for children in developing countries? I was always amazed by a certain feature: The "View Source" button.

When you pressed it, the source code for the currently running application would open. This was supposed to encourage tinkering with the software on your device! <3

I've been pondering what it would take to build that button on modern machines. Has anyone seen something like that?

(Prototype in next toot.)

Show threadblinryFeb 19

You'd roughly need to:

- Figure out which program is currently focused
- Figure out the Git repo of this software
- Clone it into a temporary directory
- Set up the required tools to start hacking on it and compile it

As a quick prototype, I wrote a li'l Bash script that does some of these things. It makes heavy use of #nix and #nixpkgs:

https://codeberg.org/blinry/view-source-button

I enters a "dev shell" with the required tools already in the PATH, and even sets up a Git remote to start contributing. :D

view-source-button

A script that allows you to start tinkering with software

Codeberg.org
Show threadKlaus FrankFeb 19

@blinry

Or have the entire system built around being interpreted like Python or C#. Maybe C# would even be a better option as it's JIT compiler is better in my eyes. And it integrates better with that XML based GUI definition language Microsoft had.

Edit: WPF XAML was it.

Show threadRay McCarthyFeb 19

@agowa338 @blinry Wasn't C# simply a MS repackage of MS J++, the MS version of Java, because they were sued by Sun?
Years ago I used to peer inside Java "jars" on XP and Ubuntu.

I found C# far better than VB.net, but both inferior to VB6 for quick GUIs on SQL or simulating keypad and LCD of a microcontroller and prototyping the code.
Then I went back to RF design and mostly abandoned programming apart from JAL on PIC18.
But view source is very niche. You only want the overhead on a Dev's PC.

Show threadShadSterlingFeb 19
@raymaccarthy @agowa338 @blinry not simply a repackage, it was a redesign from the ground up, trying to improve on the things Java aimed for but didn’t really achieve - and with some success
Show threadRay McCarthyFeb 19
@ShadSterling @agowa338 @blinry
Yes, J++ was. The C# (2004?) was very much a repackage of J++, but I tried both and stuck with VB6. I had used C++ from 1987.
Later I did some cross platform Java designed to maintain look & feel of what ever theme of XP or Vista used, whichever desktop + theme on Linux and for Mac, though I didn't personally test the Mac. Baffles me how badly Mozilla does; should know better. The Java app talked to a device driver for a PCMCIA based 4G card (not LTE or Wimax).
Show threadShadSterlingFeb 19
@raymaccarthy @agowa338 @blinry yeah, J++ was an attempt to EEE Java, especially for “applets” in IE, that got shut down by the court ruling. dotNET and C# were the subsequent attempt to build a better mousetrap, which largely succeeded in terms of capabilities, but failed to replace Java in adoption because it was closed-source and windows-only
Show threadRay McCarthy
@ShadSterling @agowa338 @blinry
And if C# had been crossplatform and more liberally licenced, Android might have used it instead of Java. Then Oracle would not have sued Google.
But Symbian devs were using Mobile Java and Google wanted them.
Sun had the odd idea that Mobile Java was free-sh, Desktop Java was free-ish, but it was forbidden to use the Desktop version on anything else. It never made sense.
Feb 19 at 5:59pmWeb