From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by pauillac.inria.fr (8.7.6/8.7.3) id DAA22731; Mon, 11 Aug 2003 03:21:54 +0200 (MET DST) X-Authentication-Warning: pauillac.inria.fr: majordomo set sender to owner-caml-list@pauillac.inria.fr using -f Received: from nez-perce.inria.fr (nez-perce.inria.fr [192.93.2.78]) by pauillac.inria.fr (8.7.6/8.7.3) with ESMTP id DAA31479 for ; Mon, 11 Aug 2003 03:21:52 +0200 (MET DST) X-SPAM-Warning: Sending machine is listed in blackholes.five-ten-sg.com Received: from eposta.kablonet.com.tr ([62.248.102.66]) by nez-perce.inria.fr (8.11.1/8.11.1) with SMTP id h7B1LpT18552 for ; Mon, 11 Aug 2003 03:21:51 +0200 (MET DST) Received: (qmail 31176 invoked by uid 0); 11 Aug 2003 01:24:46 -0000 Received: from unknown (HELO 195.174.173.82) (exa@kablonet.com.tr@195.174.173.82) by 0 with SMTP; 11 Aug 2003 01:24:46 -0000 From: Eray Ozkural Reply-To: erayo@cs.bilkent.edu.tr Organization: Bilkent University CS Dept. To: Matt Gushee Subject: Re: [Caml-list] Re: Tcl/Tk and RH 9 Date: Mon, 11 Aug 2003 04:20:53 +0300 User-Agent: KMail/1.5.9 References: <1060394583.12630.4.camel@localhost.localdomain> <200308110215.42114.exa@kablonet.com.tr> <20030811004129.GB32383@swordfish> In-Reply-To: <20030811004129.GB32383@swordfish> Cc: caml-list@inria.fr MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Disposition: inline Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Message-Id: <200308110420.53523.exa@kablonet.com.tr> X-Loop: caml-list@inria.fr X-Spam: no; 0.00; eray:01 ozkural:01 caml-list:01 gushee:01 toolkit:01 xfree:01 model:01 gui:01 generic:01 no-brainer:99 kde:01 abstraction:01 quirks:01 erayo:01 bilkent:01 Sender: owner-caml-list@pauillac.inria.fr Precedence: bulk On Monday 11 August 2003 03:41, Matt Gushee wrote: > > GTK on the other hand, isn't the top notch toolkit out there. The > > technically superior toolkit is Qt *grin* > > Hmph. I suppose. I personally don't care for it because it's very slow > on older machines, and causes XFree86 to lock up on some. Then there's > the licensing issue on Windows. But better-designed? I guess it probably > is. With GTK, I would worry about its object model, library design, hack-ability, platform-independence.... The design of gtk seems fairly "backwards" to me. I remember how bad the C++ bindings were and I don't think the situation has changed much. This is not to say Qt would be a better "choice" for ocaml because that too is designed with an imperative PL with a not-very-cool type system: C++. However, it is more effective in that domain as evidenced by existing code... It is now going to sound "bold" to you people, but I don't understand why you can't write the ultimate portable GUI toolkit in ocaml itself. With a language as generic as ocaml it should be a no-brainer to efficiently abstract over peculiarities of windows systems. Besides, you will find that the limitations of those C/C++ based systems will be severe. I can make an educated guess because I was designing an ocaml binding for KDE... If you decide on some kind of binding to a "high level" toolkit like gtk it's going to be some abstraction layer over black boxes with a lot of quirks, it's not going to be pretty. Regards, -- Eray Ozkural (exa) Comp. Sci. Dept., Bilkent University, Ankara KDE Project: http://www.kde.org www: http://www.cs.bilkent.edu.tr/~erayo Malfunction: http://mp3.com/ariza GPG public key fingerprint: 360C 852F 88B0 A745 F31B EA0F 7C07 AE16 874D 539C ------------------- To unsubscribe, mail caml-list-request@inria.fr Archives: http://caml.inria.fr Bug reports: http://caml.inria.fr/bin/caml-bugs FAQ: http://caml.inria.fr/FAQ/ Beginner's list: http://groups.yahoo.com/group/ocaml_beginners