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 LAA19879 for caml-redistribution; Tue, 22 Feb 2000 11:39:41 +0100 (MET) 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 SAA13895 for ; Mon, 21 Feb 2000 18:26:41 +0100 (MET) Received: from saul.cis.upenn.edu (SAUL.CIS.UPENN.EDU [158.130.12.4]) by nez-perce.inria.fr (8.8.7/8.8.7) with ESMTP id SAA12334 for ; Mon, 21 Feb 2000 18:26:38 +0100 (MET) Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by saul.cis.upenn.edu (8.8.5/8.8.5) with SMTP id MAA06832; Mon, 21 Feb 2000 12:22:48 -0500 (EST) To: ohl@hep.tu-darmstadt.de, caml-list@inria.fr Reply-to: bcpierce@cis.upenn.edu Subject: Re: Preferred GUI Toolkit for O'Caml 3? In-reply-to: Your message of Fri, 18 Feb 2000 14:54:10 +0100. <14509.20226.13985.265187@heplix4.ikp.physik.tu-darmstadt.de> Date: Mon, 21 Feb 2000 12:22:48 EST Message-ID: <6830.951153768@saul.cis.upenn.edu> From: "Benjamin C. Pierce" Sender: weis We in the Unison group are also about to embark on a major UI redesign and have been wondering which toolkit to use. Besides Thorsten's points, there are two more that are critical concerns for us: * seamless portability (Unix and Win32) * ability to build statically linked binaries (this is a pretty big drawback to the Tk-based solutions) Comments on these points as well as the others would be very useful. -- Benjamin