From mboxrd@z Thu Jan  1 00:00:00 1970
Return-Path: <kakadu.hafanana@gmail.com>
X-Original-To: caml-list@sympa.inria.fr
Delivered-To: caml-list@sympa.inria.fr
Received: from mail3-relais-sop.national.inria.fr (mail3-relais-sop.national.inria.fr [192.134.164.104])
	by sympa.inria.fr (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 79FFE820A1
	for <caml-list@sympa.inria.fr>; Wed, 11 Sep 2013 09:22:02 +0200 (CEST)
Received-SPF: None (mail3-smtp-sop.national.inria.fr: no sender
  authenticity information available from domain of
  kakadu.hafanana@gmail.com) identity=pra;
  client-ip=209.85.160.44;
  receiver=mail3-smtp-sop.national.inria.fr;
  envelope-from="kakadu.hafanana@gmail.com";
  x-sender="kakadu.hafanana@gmail.com";
  x-conformance=sidf_compatible
Received-SPF: Pass (mail3-smtp-sop.national.inria.fr: domain of
  kakadu.hafanana@gmail.com designates 209.85.160.44 as
  permitted sender) identity=mailfrom; client-ip=209.85.160.44;
  receiver=mail3-smtp-sop.national.inria.fr;
  envelope-from="kakadu.hafanana@gmail.com";
  x-sender="kakadu.hafanana@gmail.com";
  x-conformance=sidf_compatible; x-record-type="v=spf1"
Received-SPF: None (mail3-smtp-sop.national.inria.fr: no sender
  authenticity information available from domain of
  postmaster@mail-pb0-f44.google.com) identity=helo;
  client-ip=209.85.160.44;
  receiver=mail3-smtp-sop.national.inria.fr;
  envelope-from="kakadu.hafanana@gmail.com";
  x-sender="postmaster@mail-pb0-f44.google.com";
  x-conformance=sidf_compatible
X-IronPort-Anti-Spam-Filtered: true
X-IronPort-Anti-Spam-Result: AgoCADgZMFLRVaAsjWdsb2JhbABbgz9FDLAUklWBEwgWDgEBAQEHCwsJEgYkgiUBAQVAARsSCwEDDAYFCwMKDSEiAREBBQEKEgYTCAqHXQEDDwykJYxRgweEJQoZJwMKZIhVAQUMjiGBOQeEHQOJMIV8iEyBL45aGCmETTeBNQ
X-IPAS-Result: AgoCADgZMFLRVaAsjWdsb2JhbABbgz9FDLAUklWBEwgWDgEBAQEHCwsJEgYkgiUBAQVAARsSCwEDDAYFCwMKDSEiAREBBQEKEgYTCAqHXQEDDwykJYxRgweEJQoZJwMKZIhVAQUMjiGBOQeEHQOJMIV8iEyBL45aGCmETTeBNQ
X-IronPort-AV: E=Sophos;i="4.90,882,1371074400"; 
   d="scan'208";a="26439367"
Received: from mail-pb0-f44.google.com ([209.85.160.44])
  by mail3-smtp-sop.national.inria.fr with ESMTP/TLS/RC4-SHA; 11 Sep 2013 09:22:01 +0200
Received: by mail-pb0-f44.google.com with SMTP id xa7so8712054pbc.3
        for <caml-list@inria.fr>; Wed, 11 Sep 2013 00:21:59 -0700 (PDT)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed;
        d=gmail.com; s=20120113;
        h=mime-version:in-reply-to:references:date:message-id:subject:from:to
         :cc:content-type;
        bh=y8DGTd90Fdrlp7ZJO92+20mt+VoE8VochVii2CgxF7g=;
        b=CethLY1tlXR9dDIw33Tfna5inN2AkIZgZYpyBPW3E/aKnxjomNt7/9dxEoj4cOEJpz
         UG/hzgXWmW7ZhmGyHWLtHVXIEvn4CAlP+LlKQVEMJtt0NODgdWX8AHxyLnDmkUVGm9fz
         QZhBf0kFiiFqrkj5Bl63C/ziN/xzPEpQDvTZouPCowDTfN6VRrosZvTc3IqLfXrz1oRa
         vpY6jP5XbY9bJZhZfMgSiROgNq//By8hD5MRZpHoWeKDcMJ7Pdr6s3QRHqvcvJi2faiT
         uPgITtf+/kpzuBfIe8CXBiafyubyiN6V/jD+10HohbBB+0OYewMCf+XOfmzUeE+yoL16
         XkwA==
MIME-Version: 1.0
X-Received: by 10.66.12.164 with SMTP id z4mr2048263pab.148.1378884118483;
 Wed, 11 Sep 2013 00:21:58 -0700 (PDT)
Received: by 10.70.50.71 with HTTP; Wed, 11 Sep 2013 00:21:58 -0700 (PDT)
In-Reply-To: <20130911052437.GA9514@notk.org>
References: <20130910230928.2d51cd39@atmarama.noip.me>
	<CAPzAKVCSHcYmiqb4BbDkjAnLUkMxTi5OYFYZAJ5YediFFBbv6Q@mail.gmail.com>
	<20130911052437.GA9514@notk.org>
Date: Wed, 11 Sep 2013 11:21:58 +0400
Message-ID: <CAGmVoG0QJTxoZD+tvxMoCW_PPus93oabDGKh7OzZZn_UvOedvw@mail.gmail.com>
From: Kakadu <kakadu.hafanana@gmail.com>
To: Paolo Donadeo <p.donadeo@gmail.com>
Cc: OCaml mailing list <caml-list@inria.fr>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1
Subject: Re: [Caml-list] OCaml vs Ada and/or GUI options

The idea behind lablqt it to generated some C++ code while programmer
will not be needed to look inside it. Also, lablqt is more oriented on
using QtQuick instead QtWidgets, so your argument about developing in
C++ is not so strong in case lablqt.


Kakadu

On Wed, Sep 11, 2013 at 9:24 AM, Adrien Nader <adrien@notk.org> wrote:
> Hi,
>
> On Tue, Sep 10, 2013, Paolo Donadeo wrote:
>> GTK: my personal opinion is that it's an awful toolkit, from each and every
>> point of view. Bad software design, horrible widgets, etc... The OCaml
>> binding is probably (from the programmer point of view) *better* than the
>> original C API, but it's still a pain.
>
> I'm trying to get a list of things that people find bad in (labl)gtk.
> Would you be able to put clear words on what you dislike?
>
> I'm looking for input from anyone and you can mail me directly if you
> don't want to flood the list (or send a message on IRC).
>
> Thanks,
> Adrien Nader
>
> --
> Caml-list mailing list.  Subscription management and archives:
> https://sympa.inria.fr/sympa/arc/caml-list
> Beginner's list: http://groups.yahoo.com/group/ocaml_beginners
> Bug reports: http://caml.inria.fr/bin/caml-bugs