From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: weis Received: (from weis@localhost) by pauillac.inria.fr (8.7.6/8.7.3) id PAA16632 for caml-redistribution@pauillac.inria.fr; Tue, 22 Feb 2000 15:10:19 +0100 (MET) Resent-Message-Id: <200002221410.PAA16632@pauillac.inria.fr> 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 OAA14794 for ; Tue, 22 Feb 2000 14:40:10 +0100 (MET) Received: from ruby (kenny97.zip.com.au [61.8.18.225]) by nez-perce.inria.fr (8.8.7/8.8.7) with ESMTP id OAA11917 for ; Tue, 22 Feb 2000 14:40:05 +0100 (MET) Received: from maxtal.com.au (IDENT:root@localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ruby (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id AAA21831; Wed, 23 Feb 2000 00:39:27 +1100 Sender: root@ruby Message-ID: <38B2918F.84D822A0@maxtal.com.au> Date: Wed, 23 Feb 2000 00:39:27 +1100 From: skaller Organization: Maxtal X-Mailer: Mozilla 4.51 [en] (X11; I; Linux 2.2.12 i586) X-Accept-Language: en MIME-Version: 1.0 To: Jacques Garrigue CC: ohl@hep.tu-darmstadt.de, caml-list@inria.fr Subject: Re: Preferred GUI Toolkit for O'Caml 3? References: <14509.20226.13985.265187@heplix4.ikp.physik.tu-darmstadt.de> <20000222104602Q.garrigue@kurims.kyoto-u.ac.jp> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Resent-From: weis@pauillac.inria.fr Resent-Date: Tue, 22 Feb 2000 15:10:19 +0100 Resent-To: caml-redistribution@pauillac.inria.fr Jacques Garrigue wrote: > > From: Thorsten Ohl > > > I soon have to do major surgery (= an almost complete rewrite) on a > > graphical user interface, currently in O'CamlTK. > > > > Since retargeting to incompatible GUIs is such a boring job, I'd like > > to hear which toolkit do you see in your tea leafs as the future > > toolkit of choice? > > I answer for the two libraries I'm concerned with. > > > - LablTK [ (+) more convenient than O'CamlTK > > (+) part of O'Caml 2.99 ] > > This is now an integral part of the ocaml distribution, available on > both Unix and Windows (in ocaml 3.00). The interface should be stable > in the future, making it a good choice if portability and > maintainability matter. > > > - lablgtk [ same a mlgtk, plus > > (-) still beta > > (+) appears(!) to have the slickest API ] > > Beta does mainly mean that it may undergo API changes in the future. > It is already good enough for writing applications. The next version > will also support Windows. > This is a good choice if appearance matters, and you are ready to > eventually suffer a bit with API changes. I would beg to differ with this analysis: Tk has some nice widgets, like the text widget, which are _much_ better than GTK's rather woeful offering. However, GTK has a tree widget, and while GTK is under development -- which is a disadvantage -- it is also under development -- which is an advantage :-) Tk is reasonably stable .. but dead. It is also sssllllloooowwwww under Windows. IMHO: use Tk if it is enough, and GTK for projects with a serious future. -- John (Max) Skaller, mailto:skaller@maxtal.com.au 10/1 Toxteth Rd Glebe NSW 2037 Australia voice: 61-2-9660-0850 checkout Vyper http://Vyper.sourceforge.net download Interscript http://Interscript.sourceforge.net