From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: 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 8B1BE820A1 for ; Wed, 11 Sep 2013 22:48:45 +0200 (CEST) Received-SPF: None (mail3-smtp-sop.national.inria.fr: no sender authenticity information available from domain of anthony.tavener@gmail.com) identity=pra; client-ip=209.85.215.169; receiver=mail3-smtp-sop.national.inria.fr; envelope-from="anthony.tavener@gmail.com"; x-sender="anthony.tavener@gmail.com"; x-conformance=sidf_compatible Received-SPF: Pass (mail3-smtp-sop.national.inria.fr: domain of anthony.tavener@gmail.com designates 209.85.215.169 as permitted sender) identity=mailfrom; client-ip=209.85.215.169; receiver=mail3-smtp-sop.national.inria.fr; envelope-from="anthony.tavener@gmail.com"; x-sender="anthony.tavener@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-ea0-f169.google.com) identity=helo; client-ip=209.85.215.169; receiver=mail3-smtp-sop.national.inria.fr; envelope-from="anthony.tavener@gmail.com"; x-sender="postmaster@mail-ea0-f169.google.com"; x-conformance=sidf_compatible X-IronPort-Anti-Spam-Filtered: true X-IronPort-Anti-Spam-Result: ApABAJvWMFLRVdepm2dsb2JhbABbhBHABoEVCBYOAQEBAQEGCwsJFCiCJQEBBAFAARsdAQMMBgUEBzsiAREBBQEcGYdvAQMJBqFejFGDB4QgChknDWSIQQEFDI9eBxaEBwOJN45CkAkYKYRpHQ X-IPAS-Result: ApABAJvWMFLRVdepm2dsb2JhbABbhBHABoEVCBYOAQEBAQEGCwsJFCiCJQEBBAFAARsdAQMMBgUEBzsiAREBBQEcGYdvAQMJBqFejFGDB4QgChknDWSIQQEFDI9eBxaEBwOJN45CkAkYKYRpHQ X-IronPort-AV: E=Sophos;i="4.90,886,1371074400"; d="scan'208";a="26534392" Received: from mail-ea0-f169.google.com ([209.85.215.169]) by mail3-smtp-sop.national.inria.fr with ESMTP/TLS/RC4-SHA; 11 Sep 2013 22:48:44 +0200 Received: by mail-ea0-f169.google.com with SMTP id k11so4929814eaj.14 for ; Wed, 11 Sep 2013 13:48:44 -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=eUphO4TuCCPA8j5SxbtA2N5KS0rD71n3NhX+7KeQFrI=; b=GzUSqehWLW965AOwdLRL7kaP0SfQsTvcg9xy5HLigL+UJhh6vJoiwdNmNP0ZJMcdyl gcLuVK7EAiBad7Ouy1Kfibtt3oKQIZc5NHl5XzSlO9jKFdnN2YKcUH5euIzITrXFRnaI /zyc6/0SDW6LAaygLIU8Askgdxdy5ITGOpEZ5C5ajVNy0ZbkUqqt6/2abDhqFuKUvL3f k0nX9b6o+FCuu8dS/CgZrQvajbn/Bmrhzy14+QHimBv1LtscrCP0lTcAnLPtGUBPzD4O KZotYcnMjBfWvuOcPFVA6zpDRj/0Tc9BMVhRSckHEjVdUum0qp+kfifvCK5MtAZ0l6Zc f8aQ== MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Received: by 10.14.174.195 with SMTP id x43mr5194315eel.47.1378932524331; Wed, 11 Sep 2013 13:48:44 -0700 (PDT) Received: by 10.14.10.68 with HTTP; Wed, 11 Sep 2013 13:48:44 -0700 (PDT) In-Reply-To: <054201ceaf2a$5a0ece10$0e2c6a30$@ffconsultancy.com> References: <20130910230928.2d51cd39@atmarama.noip.me> <20130911052437.GA9514@notk.org> <20130911101457.3f756b68@atmarama.noip.me> <20130911181737.GA3764@notk.org> <054201ceaf2a$5a0ece10$0e2c6a30$@ffconsultancy.com> Date: Wed, 11 Sep 2013 14:48:44 -0600 Message-ID: From: Anthony Tavener To: jon@ffconsultancy.com Cc: Gour , "caml-list@inria.fr" Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary=047d7b62226848625004e621bf02 Subject: Re: [Caml-list] Re: OCaml vs Ada and/or GUI options --047d7b62226848625004e621bf02 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1 On Wed, Sep 11, 2013 at 2:06 PM, Jon Harrop wrote: > > My advice would be to forget about using OCaml's FFI to interop with > Linux' GUI libraries and focus instead on writing a new GUI library from > scratch in OCaml using OpenGL. > I agree. Game-devs do this all the time -- making their own GUIs -- and they're often slicker and faster. It's not as hard making something app-specific. The difficulty is making a library that supports every edge-case that every developer needs (and still falling short). An argument against this would be uniformity or playing nice with standards (not sure how many standards straddle the OS/Desktop spectrum though). I'm not a fan of uniformity -- it tends to constrain applications. Communication-standards are good, where we have them. But I mean look-and-feel... user-interaction should be as suited to the application. But this might be a minority opinion. I'm not a fan of stunted Apple-esque UIs, and hate Gnome's march to ever more compliance and uniformity to their own guidelines. I typically use four major applications -- what advantage does uniformity bring? --047d7b62226848625004e621bf02 Content-Type: text/html; charset=ISO-8859-1 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable



On Wed, Sep 11, 2013 at 2:06 PM, Jon Harrop <<= a href=3D"mailto:jon@ffconsultancy.com" target=3D"_blank">jon@ffconsultancy= .com> wrote:

My advice would be to forget about using OCaml's FFI to interop w= ith Linux' GUI libraries and focus instead on writing a new GUI library= from scratch in OCaml using OpenGL.

I agree. Game-devs do this all the time -- making their own GUIs -- and the= y're often slicker and faster. It's not as hard making something ap= p-specific. The difficulty is making a library that supports every edge-cas= e that every developer needs (and still falling short).

An argument against this would be uniformit= y or playing nice with standards (not sure how many standards straddle the = OS/Desktop spectrum though). I'm not a fan of uniformity -- it tends to= constrain applications. Communication-standards are good, where we have th= em. But I mean look-and-feel... user-interaction should be as suited to the= application. But this might be a minority opinion. I'm not a fan of st= unted Apple-esque UIs, and hate Gnome's march to ever more compliance a= nd uniformity to their own guidelines. I typically use four major applicati= ons -- what advantage does uniformity bring?

--047d7b62226848625004e621bf02--