From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: X-Original-To: caml-list@yquem.inria.fr Delivered-To: caml-list@yquem.inria.fr Received: from mail1-relais-roc.national.inria.fr (mail1-relais-roc.national.inria.fr [192.134.164.82]) by yquem.inria.fr (Postfix) with ESMTP id 5878ABBAF for ; Fri, 26 Nov 2010 20:09:07 +0100 (CET) X-IronPort-Anti-Spam-Filtered: true X-IronPort-Anti-Spam-Result: AuMJABaV70xQDPIwZmdsb2JhbACjEBUNCwgIEgMfphSZe4VHBIRciRQ X-IronPort-AV: E=Sophos;i="4.59,262,1288566000"; d="scan'208";a="89458736" Received: from smtp21.orange.fr ([80.12.242.48]) by mail1-smtp-roc.national.inria.fr with ESMTP; 26 Nov 2010 20:09:07 +0100 Received: from me-wanadoo.net (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by mwinf2118.orange.fr (SMTP Server) with ESMTP id 907451C000BA; Fri, 26 Nov 2010 20:09:06 +0100 (CET) Received: from me-wanadoo.net (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by mwinf2118.orange.fr (SMTP Server) with ESMTP id 812921C000BC; Fri, 26 Nov 2010 20:09:06 +0100 (CET) Received: from [172.24.131.5] (out1-1601fw.corp.tfbnw.net [66.220.144.27]) by mwinf2118.orange.fr (SMTP Server) with ESMTP id B5BCB1C000BA; Fri, 26 Nov 2010 20:09:05 +0100 (CET) X-ME-UUID: 20101126190905744.B5BCB1C000BA@mwinf2118.orange.fr X-ME-User-Auth: padator@wanadoo.fr Subject: Re: [Caml-list] Desktop GUI toolkits - current state of the art? Mime-Version: 1.0 (Apple Message framework v1081) Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii From: Yoann Padioleau In-Reply-To: Date: Fri, 26 Nov 2010 11:09:04 -0800 Cc: OCaml List Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Message-Id: <4EF2E0B5-58C9-4F1D-ABBF-630863619E17@wanadoo.fr> References: <299CA113-601F-4C96-B012-E092F14EEEE6@wanadoo.fr> To: Martin DeMello X-Mailer: Apple Mail (2.1081) X-Spam: no; 0.00; gtk:01 lablgtk:01 gtk:01 lablgtk:01 ocaml:01 low-level:01 high-level:01 low-level:01 wrote:01 wrote:01 syntactic:01 caml-list:01 api:02 garrigue:03 jacques:03 On Nov 24, 2010, at 1:38 AM, Martin DeMello wrote: >=20 > On Wed, Nov 24, 2010 at 4:58 AM, Yoann Padioleau = wrote: >>=20 >> What is better looking in vala or ruby/gtk ? >>=20 >> What you don't like in lablgtk ? >=20 > Both ruby and vala make an effort to provide nice syntactic support > for gtk code, so that it looks like a natural part of the language. Could you give some example of code explaining that ? Code in vala/ruby vs same code in lablgtk. > The OCaml code from the gtk2 tutorial looks very C-ish, whereas I was > hoping for something closer to a GUI DSL. Jacques Garrigue has pointed > out that there is actually both a low-level and a high-level API, so > I've probably just been put off by the low-level code. >=20 > martin >=20