Re: [Caml-list] Web technologies as graphical user interface to OCaml programs?

[Adrien Nader <adrien@notk.org>]

On Thu, Dec 15, 2016, David Allsopp wrote:
> rixed@happyleptic.org wrote:
> > -[ Wed, Dec 14, 2016 at 10:14:31PM +0000, SP ]----
> > > In not any particular order:
> > >
> > > - https://opam.ocaml.org/packages/labltk/
> > > - https://opam.ocaml.org/packages/lablgtk/
> > > - https://opam.ocaml.org/packages/lablqt/
> > 
> > Would any of those be "more integrated" than a web UI for anything but a
> > linux desktops?  And how portable would they be in the first place?
> 
> FWIW, "integrated" is certainly not the word which springs to mind with any of those, speaking as a Windows user! Even the poster-child browser for GTK+ doesn't exactly aspire to look like a Windows application.

It is important to note that nothing on Windows looks like Windows
itself. You don't even need to look very far: the design of Microsoft
Office is not the design of Microsoft Windows. Valve and Adobe's
interfaces are even further away from it.

The only two things that somehow seem to matter are:
- colours: either stick to Windows' or make something clearly different
  (but pretty)
- sane widgets; i.e. not GTK+'s filechooser which cannot delete file
  because it's a widget meant to select, not delete

Also note that GTK+ uses CSS for theming and Qt uses JS for high-level
widget layout. I wouldn't bet that "Web" stuff cannot look "native" when
needed. The only thing that can be a large difference is the access to
platform APIs but that's an issue shared everywhere and apparently
solved through stuff like Electron (think of the atom.io text editor).

-- 
Adrien Nader