Re: OCaml's long range graphical direction?

[John Max Skaller <skaller@ozemail.com.au>]

Francois Rouaix wrote:

> I actually think that none of CamlTk/LablTK/LabelGTK fit the most common need
> in GUI development. In many cases, it still strikes me as utterly boring and
> time consuming to write *code* to put up menus, buttons, dialogs and such. Of
> course, from time to time, when you need some form of widget that is a bit
> original, programming will be useful. But that doesn't happen a lot, unless
> you write something that needs complex rendering or interaction.
> Back in 1985, Apple started using resources to define interfaces. More
> recently, Palm used resources again to define interfaces. More recently,
> Mozilla folks used XML based representation (XUL) to define interfaces, with a
> GUI level scripting language (JavaScript/ECMAScript).

	Ah, but the specification of the resources is nothing more
than yet another programming language, and a seriously deficient one
usually (for example, not Turing complete).

	Furthermore, it is evident that this second programming language
must be _bound_ to the algorithmic one, and that binding is invariably
fragile and a serious problem.  That is, I think there is a downside
to separating functionality and appearance. As any serious game player
knows, the two are intimately connected.

-- 
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