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 DD55C820A1 for ; Tue, 10 Sep 2013 23:39:39 +0200 (CEST) Received-SPF: None (mail3-smtp-sop.national.inria.fr: no sender authenticity information available from domain of p.donadeo@gmail.com) identity=pra; client-ip=209.85.223.175; receiver=mail3-smtp-sop.national.inria.fr; envelope-from="p.donadeo@gmail.com"; x-sender="p.donadeo@gmail.com"; x-conformance=sidf_compatible Received-SPF: Pass (mail3-smtp-sop.national.inria.fr: domain of p.donadeo@gmail.com designates 209.85.223.175 as permitted sender) identity=mailfrom; client-ip=209.85.223.175; receiver=mail3-smtp-sop.national.inria.fr; envelope-from="p.donadeo@gmail.com"; x-sender="p.donadeo@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-ie0-f175.google.com) identity=helo; client-ip=209.85.223.175; receiver=mail3-smtp-sop.national.inria.fr; envelope-from="p.donadeo@gmail.com"; x-sender="postmaster@mail-ie0-f175.google.com"; x-conformance=sidf_compatible X-IronPort-Anti-Spam-Filtered: true X-IronPort-Anti-Spam-Result: AjgBANKQL1LRVd+vnGdsb2JhbABbhBCDKr83gR4IFg4BAQEBAQYNCQkUKIIcCgEFIx0BGx4DDAYFAwEHNwICIgERAQUBHAYbh2cBAw+lJYwAUYMFhCEKGScNZIhJAQUMj1aCaYE0A5d2kAIYKYRKOg X-IPAS-Result: AjgBANKQL1LRVd+vnGdsb2JhbABbhBCDKr83gR4IFg4BAQEBAQYNCQkUKIIcCgEFIx0BGx4DDAYFAwEHNwICIgERAQUBHAYbh2cBAw+lJYwAUYMFhCEKGScNZIhJAQUMj1aCaYE0A5d2kAIYKYRKOg X-IronPort-AV: E=Sophos;i="4.90,880,1371074400"; d="scan'208";a="26407467" Received: from mail-ie0-f175.google.com ([209.85.223.175]) by mail3-smtp-sop.national.inria.fr with ESMTP/TLS/RC4-SHA; 10 Sep 2013 23:39:39 +0200 Received: by mail-ie0-f175.google.com with SMTP id 9so3286939iec.34 for ; Tue, 10 Sep 2013 14:39:37 -0700 (PDT) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=20120113; h=mime-version:in-reply-to:references:from:date:message-id:subject:to :content-type; bh=vKFrfWT3mDUdGt8Hn2wbjpUfMUSgPJxxGe9G29ZDPSQ=; b=golLOktWxppbFMDF3odbV+Zr8wlch12I0/n84usQQ51I6J6SlWiRqKIVYbKpUDbPZl SjEgyAHMvgJU+EZi0PLxmCRX6tBNFUd/xJN9IIs5dpC8qiEBl6OcNhCj6cC2n1ILoCh3 ypKbuD/pJqrLFdlsR/kLmmZJmFqZUfBwhRMysvRrqRQjtxMBVxXuROFjfAG6hgiZmlDx ncg3/ZlSFRTkQLfsV87qM4F5f9H3oJQYflgAJG6P6F4rcpzQuFZLDTDIz8SVrOUqME4d O6Ri4NugvOxVVcDOuleD9pKVQrT4oZA0aQf3e9o9cPgCtVhSmrvJrpVA7cV/TQfOrPsk Pqew== X-Received: by 10.50.67.107 with SMTP id m11mr11397213igt.11.1378849177822; Tue, 10 Sep 2013 14:39:37 -0700 (PDT) MIME-Version: 1.0 Received: by 10.64.21.40 with HTTP; Tue, 10 Sep 2013 14:38:56 -0700 (PDT) In-Reply-To: <20130910230928.2d51cd39@atmarama.noip.me> References: <20130910230928.2d51cd39@atmarama.noip.me> From: Paolo Donadeo Date: Tue, 10 Sep 2013 23:38:56 +0200 Message-ID: To: OCaml mailing list Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary=047d7bd7526e716e2704e60e5785 Subject: Re: [Caml-list] OCaml vs Ada and/or GUI options --047d7bd7526e716e2704e60e5785 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable TL;DR: being an OCaml programmer now, and having worked with Ada (avionics/military sector) for a few years, my reply is: none of the two :-) Long version: I should copy&paste your long version, I agree with your analysis. In my opinion the best for good-looking GUI is Python+PyQT, which is a really mature and stable environment. Avoid C++ + QT, it's stable of course, but using C++ in 2013 is a *real* PITA. Python is totally unsafe, but in tandem with PyQT takes you to a very fast and productive environment. 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. Just my 2 =C2=A2 of course. --=20 *Paolo* --047d7bd7526e716e2704e60e5785 Content-Type: text/html; charset=UTF-8 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
TL;DR: being an OCaml programmer now, and having worked wi= th Ada (avionics/military sector) for a few years, my reply is: none of the= two :-)

Long version: I should copy&paste your long= version, I agree with your analysis. In my opinion the best for good-looki= ng GUI is Python+PyQT, which is a really mature and stable environment. Avo= id C++ + QT, it's stable of course, but using C++ in 2013 is a real<= /b> PITA. Python is totally unsafe, but in tandem with PyQT takes you to a = very fast and productive environment.

GTK: my personal opinion is that it's an awful tool= kit, from each and every point of view. Bad software design, horrible widge= ts, etc... The OCaml binding is probably (from the programmer point of view= ) better than the original C API, but it's still a pain.

Just my 2 =C2=A2 of course.

--=C2=A0
Paolo
--047d7bd7526e716e2704e60e5785--