Re: [Caml-list] A labltk book?

Re: [Caml-list] A labltk book?

[Pascal Cuoq]

> > The LablGTK2 bindings to GTK2 by Jacques Garrigue et al. are simply 
>superb
> > (robust, efficient and easy to use):

to which "Nathaniel Gray" <n8gray@gmail.com> answered :

>... provided you don't care much about OS X users.

The last time I had a try, I only needed to download and
compile the following from source to get my Ocaml+gtk2
application to work natively under OS X (and by natively I just mean
without X11, although I have hopes to use gtk2's themability to
make keybindings and perhaps appearance closer to Aqua):

atk-1.19.6.tar.bz2
cairo-1.4.10.tar.gz
glib-2.14.0.tar.bz2
gtk+-2.10.14.tar.bz2
pango-1.17.3.tar.bz2

Note that these were all official tarballs, nothing complicated like 
switching
from Fink to Darwinports or getting CVS versions.

If you already have Fink for the basic stuff like libtiff, pkg-config, and 
so on,
it takes just two hours to compile and install everything. Or you can just 
wait
until these versions make their way into Fink. They will, eventually.

Pascal

_________________________________________________________________
Express yourself instantly with MSN Messenger! Download today it's FREE! 
http://messenger.msn.click-url.com/go/onm00200471ave/direct/01/

Re: [Caml-list] A labltk book?

[Nathaniel Gray]

On 10/14/07, Pascal Cuoq <pascal_cuoq@hotmail.com> wrote:
> > > The LablGTK2 bindings to GTK2 by Jacques Garrigue et al. are simply
> >superb
> > > (robust, efficient and easy to use):
>
> to which "Nathaniel Gray" <n8gray@gmail.com> answered :
>
> >... provided you don't care much about OS X users.
>
> The last time I had a try, I only needed to download and
> compile the following from source to get my Ocaml+gtk2
> application to work natively under OS X (and by natively I just mean
> without X11, although I have hopes to use gtk2's themability to
> make keybindings and perhaps appearance closer to Aqua):
> . . .

Good!  I'm glad to hear there has been some progress after all.  I'm
happy to stand corrected.
-n8

-- 
>>>-- Nathaniel Gray -- Caltech Computer Science ------>
>>>-- Mojave Project -- http://mojave.cs.caltech.edu -->

Re: [Caml-list] A labltk book?

[Nathaniel Gray]

On 10/13/07, Jon Harrop <jon@ffconsultancy.com> wrote:
> On Friday 12 October 2007 22:58:42 Dario Teixeira wrote:
> > > you have to go via C so it's much work and the available tools to do the
> > > automagically aren't good enaugh to do it  (ok, there is swig, but I
> > > don't like  the way the binding is generated).
> > > There exists the smoke project, it a lib to interface qt and python or
> > > ruby use it to bind to qt (and the next perl qt will also you smoke).
> > > Maybe that'a
> >
> > I reckon that native bindings might therefore prove nearly impossible!
> > Two alternate routes have occurred to me though.  The first involves
> > the Ocaml-Java project and Qt-Jambi bindings (basically Qt on the JVM):
>
> The LablGTK2 bindings to GTK2 by Jacques Garrigue et al. are simply superb
> (robust, efficient and easy to use):

... provided you don't care much about OS X users.

> > The second route involves the OCamIL project (OCaml on .NET) and
> > the Qyoto/Kimono bindings (Qt/KDE bindings for .NET):
>
> Might I suggest that using Microsoft's F# and Microsoft's Windows Forms
> from .NET is an infinitely saner way to approach GUI programming on
> Microsoft's platforms. :-)
>
> Only now that I'm working on Java and Scala code in Eclipse have I come to
> appreciate the awesome combo that F#'s VS mode and Windows Forms provide.
> Although the final GUI code is similar in size between LablGTK/OCaml and
> F#/Windows Forms, developing code in Visual Studio is vastly easier because
> Intellisense lets you explore APIs graphically with no effort.
>
> I would dearly love to see a GUI IDE for OCaml written in OCaml that combined
> simplicity with such a rich form of information throwback.

Me too!  If/when the natdynlink branch lands maybe we'll see something
like this.  (It wouldn't make much sense to do it without plugins.)

Cheers,
-n8

-- 
>>>-- Nathaniel Gray -- Caltech Computer Science ------>
>>>-- Mojave Project -- http://mojave.cs.caltech.edu -->

Re: [Caml-list] A labltk book?

[Jon Harrop]

On Friday 12 October 2007 22:58:42 Dario Teixeira wrote:
> > you have to go via C so it's much work and the available tools to do the
> > automagically aren't good enaugh to do it  (ok, there is swig, but I
> > don't like  the way the binding is generated).
> > There exists the smoke project, it a lib to interface qt and python or
> > ruby use it to bind to qt (and the next perl qt will also you smoke).
> > Maybe that'a
>
> I reckon that native bindings might therefore prove nearly impossible!
> Two alternate routes have occurred to me though.  The first involves
> the Ocaml-Java project and Qt-Jambi bindings (basically Qt on the JVM):

The LablGTK2 bindings to GTK2 by Jacques Garrigue et al. are simply superb 
(robust, efficient and easy to use):

  http://wwwfun.kurims.kyoto-u.ac.jp/soft/olabl/lablgtk.html

SooHyoung Oh has kindly written an awesome tutorial about LablGTK2:

  http://compiler.kaist.ac.kr/~shoh/ocaml/lablgtk2/lablgtk2-tutorial/

> The second route involves the OCamIL project (OCaml on .NET) and
> the Qyoto/Kimono bindings (Qt/KDE bindings for .NET):

Might I suggest that using Microsoft's F# and Microsoft's Windows Forms 
from .NET is an infinitely saner way to approach GUI programming on 
Microsoft's platforms. :-)

Only now that I'm working on Java and Scala code in Eclipse have I come to 
appreciate the awesome combo that F#'s VS mode and Windows Forms provide. 
Although the final GUI code is similar in size between LablGTK/OCaml and 
F#/Windows Forms, developing code in Visual Studio is vastly easier because 
Intellisense lets you explore APIs graphically with no effort.

I would dearly love to see a GUI IDE for OCaml written in OCaml that combined 
simplicity with such a rich form of information throwback.

-- 
Dr Jon D Harrop, Flying Frog Consultancy Ltd.
http://www.ffconsultancy.com/products/?e

Re: [Caml-list] A labltk book?

[forum]

Le 12 oct. 07 à 23:58, Dario Teixeira a écrit :

> Hi,
>
>> you have to go via C so it's much work and the available tools to  
>> do the
>> automagically aren't good enaugh to do it  (ok, there is swig, but  
>> I don't
>> like  the way the binding is generated).
>> There exists the smoke project, it a lib to interface qt and  
>> python or ruby
>> use it to bind to qt (and the next perl qt will also you smoke).  
>> Maybe that'a
>
>
> I reckon that native bindings might therefore prove nearly impossible!
> Two alternate routes have occurred to me though.  The first involves
> the Ocaml-Java project and Qt-Jambi bindings (basically Qt on the  
> JVM):

One could also use O'Jacare (http://www.pps.jussieu.fr/~henry/ojacare/)
and camljava (http://pauillac.inria.fr/~xleroy/software.html) to access
Java elements using JNI.


Xavier

Re: [Caml-list] A labltk book?

[Mattias Engdegård]

>Even dumbed down C++ doesn't work well as a target language
>due to a large number of 'non-orthogonalities' where some
>of the few good invariants C provides are lost. Unfortunately
>ISO C99 also trends that way for C as well.

Would you mind elaborating? What non-orthogonalities in C++ and C
did you have in mind?

Re: [Caml-list] A labltk book?

[forum]

Le 12 oct. 07 à 23:58, Dario Teixeira a écrit :

> Hi,
>
>> you have to go via C so it's much work and the available tools to  
>> do the
>> automagically aren't good enaugh to do it  (ok, there is swig, but  
>> I don't
>> like  the way the binding is generated).
>> There exists the smoke project, it a lib to interface qt and  
>> python or ruby
>> use it to bind to qt (and the next perl qt will also you smoke).  
>> Maybe that'a
>
>
> I reckon that native bindings might therefore prove nearly impossible!
> Two alternate routes have occurred to me though.  The first involves
> the Ocaml-Java project and Qt-Jambi bindings (basically Qt on the  
> JVM):
>
> http://ocamljava.x9c.fr/
> http://trolltech.com/products/qt/jambi
>
> The second route involves the OCamIL project (OCaml on .NET) and
> the Qyoto/Kimono bindings (Qt/KDE bindings for .NET):
>
> http://www.pps.jussieu.fr/~montela/ocamil/index.html
> http://cougarpc.net/qyoto/
>
> We've seen recent annoucements concerning the Ocaml-Java project,
> so I reckon this route might already be feasible or will be so in
> the near future.  As for route #2, I don't know the current status
> of OCamIL, so it's hard to say.
>
> Has anyone given any of these routes a try?  Perhaps the developers
> of Ocaml-Java or OCamIL would like to share their thoughts?

Well, I never used Qt, so I can't compare what I propose below to  
neither Qt nor Jambi.

Using OCaml-Java, you can quite easily access Java Swing by two ways :
	- use Nickel (http://nickel.x9c.fr/) to generate OCaml-to-Java  
bindings from
	an xml file describing the classes you are interested in ;
	- use the Cadmium-SwiXml subproject (http://cadmium.x9c.fr/) that  
provides
	bindings to the SwiXml framework (http://www.swixml.org/) - SwiXml  
allows
	GUI rendering from an xml description.

Of course, using OCaml-Java may rise performance issues.
If this is a concern, I would consider compiling the "GUI part" using  
OCaml-Java
while having the "engine part" compiled with ocamlopt. Then the two  
parts could
be glued together in a client/server setting, using marshalling of  
values.

Hope this helps,

Xavier


PS: using Nickel, you can of course generate bindings to other  
toolkits (e.g. SWT)

Re: [Caml-list] A labltk book?

[skaller]

On Fri, 2007-10-12 at 16:23 -0400, Brian Hurt wrote:

> The problem as I understand things is that C++ doesn't play nice with
> any language that is not C++ or explicitly designed to work with C++
> (cue Skaller).  This is especially true if you use the fancy features
> of C++ like templates and operator overloading, which Qt does.  Which
> makes it much easier to use in C++, but much harder to bind to any
> other language.

Can't speak for Qt, but otherwise Brian is quite correct.
Even dumbed down C++ doesn't work well as a target language
due to a large number of 'non-orthogonalities' where some
of the few good invariants C provides are lost. Unfortunately
ISO C99 also trends that way for C as well.

-- 
John Skaller <skaller at users dot sf dot net>
Felix, successor to C++: http://felix.sf.net

Re: [Caml-list] A labltk book?

[Dario Teixeira]

Hi,
 
> you have to go via C so it's much work and the available tools to do the 
> automagically aren't good enaugh to do it  (ok, there is swig, but I don't 
> like  the way the binding is generated).
> There exists the smoke project, it a lib to interface qt and python or ruby 
> use it to bind to qt (and the next perl qt will also you smoke). Maybe that'a


I reckon that native bindings might therefore prove nearly impossible!
Two alternate routes have occurred to me though.  The first involves
the Ocaml-Java project and Qt-Jambi bindings (basically Qt on the JVM):

http://ocamljava.x9c.fr/
http://trolltech.com/products/qt/jambi

The second route involves the OCamIL project (OCaml on .NET) and
the Qyoto/Kimono bindings (Qt/KDE bindings for .NET):

http://www.pps.jussieu.fr/~montela/ocamil/index.html
http://cougarpc.net/qyoto/

We've seen recent annoucements concerning the Ocaml-Java project,
so I reckon this route might already be feasible or will be so in
the near future.  As for route #2, I don't know the current status
of OCamIL, so it's hard to say.

Has anyone given any of these routes a try?  Perhaps the developers
of Ocaml-Java or OCamIL would like to share their thoughts?

Cheers,
Dario




      ___________________________________________________________ 
Want ideas for reducing your carbon footprint? Visit Yahoo! For Good  http://uk.promotions.yahoo.com/forgood/environment.html

Re: [Caml-list] A labltk book?

[Brian Hurt]

[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 1089 bytes --]

Dario Teixeira wrote:

>>Probably.  Its widgets are also much nicer looking, and apps written
>>with it don't look jarringly out of place on a modern desktop the way
>>Tk apps do.  (All IMO, of course.)
>>    
>>
>
>Hi,
>
>Still on the subject of toolkits, is there a reason why there aren't any
>OCaml bindings for Qt?  I mean, is it simply because no one ever bothered
>to implement one, or are there license incompatibility issues?
>
>I have used both Qt and Gtk before, and in my opinion, not only does
>Qt's elegance give it an edge over Gtk, it also feels like it would be
>a better match to OCaml.
>  
>

The problem as I understand things is that C++ doesn't play nice with 
any language that is not C++ or explicitly designed to work with C++ 
(cue Skaller).  This is especially true if you use the fancy features of 
C++ like templates and operator overloading, which Qt does.  Which makes 
it much easier to use in C++, but much harder to bind to any other language.

Note that this is true of all languages- it'd be a trick to write an 
Ocaml to Swing binding as well.

Brian


[-- Attachment #2: Type: text/html, Size: 1533 bytes --]

Re: [Caml-list] A labltk book?

[Michael Wohlwend]

Am Freitag 12 Oktober 2007 22:03:17 schrieb Dario Teixeira:
> I have used both Qt and Gtk before, and in my opinion, not only does
> Qt's elegance give it an edge over Gtk, it also feels like it would be
> a better match to OCaml.

you have to go via C so it's much work and the available tools to do the 
automagically aren't good enaugh to do it  (ok, there is swig, but I don't 
like  the way the binding is generated).
There exists the smoke project, it a lib to interface qt and python or ruby 
use it to bind to qt (and the next perl qt will also you smoke). Maybe that'a 
an easier way to do it (but it's c++ again)...

I have done a binding (most of it) to fltk2 by hand and even if fltk2 is small 
it's much typing.... :-)

Michael

Re: [Caml-list] A labltk book?

[Dario Teixeira]

> Probably.  Its widgets are also much nicer looking, and apps written
> with it don't look jarringly out of place on a modern desktop the way
> Tk apps do.  (All IMO, of course.)

Hi,

Still on the subject of toolkits, is there a reason why there aren't any
OCaml bindings for Qt?  I mean, is it simply because no one ever bothered
to implement one, or are there license incompatibility issues?

I have used both Qt and Gtk before, and in my opinion, not only does
Qt's elegance give it an edge over Gtk, it also feels like it would be
a better match to OCaml.

Kind regards,
Dario Teixeira



      ___________________________________________________________
Yahoo! Answers - Got a question? Someone out there knows the answer. Try it
now.
http://uk.answers.yahoo.com/ 

Re: [Caml-list] A labltk book?

[Eric Cooper]

On Fri, Oct 12, 2007 at 07:43:32AM +0100, Jon Harrop wrote:
> On Friday 12 October 2007 05:50:58 Jeff Shaw wrote:
> > I'm wondering if there's much of a market for a proper Labltk book?
> I'd love a book on GUI programming with OCaml! Is LabkGTK2 more
> popular than LablTK?

Probably.  Its widgets are also much nicer looking, and apps written
with it don't look jarringly out of place on a modern desktop the way
Tk apps do.  (All IMO, of course.)

-- 
Eric Cooper             e c c @ c m u . e d u

Re: [Caml-list] A labltk book?

[Nathaniel Gray]

Oops, forgot to CC the list.  Darn lack of reply-to munging...

On 10/12/07, Nathaniel Gray <n8gray@gmail.com> wrote:
> On 10/11/07, Jon Harrop <jon@ffconsultancy.com> wrote:
> > On Friday 12 October 2007 05:50:58 Jeff Shaw wrote:
> > > Dear Ocaml Community,
> > > After teaching myself Labltk and learning enough about its internals to
> > > update it to use Tk 8.4's new widgets, I'm wondering if there's much of
> > > a market for a proper Labltk book? Nothing too serious, maybe something
> > > self-published that would cost in the range of $10 to $20 and provide
> > > some missing documentation and tutorials. Lots of screenshots of course,
> > > and maybe a simple game or two.
> > >
> > > I'd release it for free, but hey, I'm a poor student.
> > >
> > > Any thoughts?
> >
> > I'd love a book on GUI programming with OCaml! Is LabkGTK2 more popular than
> > LablTK?
>
> LablTK has the advantage of being truly cross-platform.  I guess the
> GTK people are working on a native OS X port but results have been in
> short supply.

-- 
>>>-- Nathaniel Gray -- Caltech Computer Science ------>
>>>-- Mojave Project -- http://mojave.cs.caltech.edu -->

Re: [Caml-list] A labltk book?

[Jon Harrop]

On Friday 12 October 2007 05:50:58 Jeff Shaw wrote:
> Dear Ocaml Community,
> After teaching myself Labltk and learning enough about its internals to
> update it to use Tk 8.4's new widgets, I'm wondering if there's much of
> a market for a proper Labltk book? Nothing too serious, maybe something
> self-published that would cost in the range of $10 to $20 and provide
> some missing documentation and tutorials. Lots of screenshots of course,
> and maybe a simple game or two.
>
> I'd release it for free, but hey, I'm a poor student.
>
> Any thoughts?

I'd love a book on GUI programming with OCaml! Is LabkGTK2 more popular than 
LablTK?

I'd rather pay money for a paper book than have to print and bind a free book 
here...

-- 
Dr Jon D Harrop, Flying Frog Consultancy Ltd.
http://www.ffconsultancy.com/products/?e