[Haskell-cafe] Why binding to existing widget toolkits doesn't
make any sense
jonathanccast at fastmail.fm
Mon Feb 2 16:33:40 EST 2009
On Mon, 2009-02-02 at 13:28 -0800, Conal Elliott wrote:
> On Mon, Feb 2, 2009 at 11:39 AM, Creighton Hogg <wchogg at gmail.com>
> 2009/1/29 Conal Elliott <conal at conal.net>:
> > Hi Achim,
> > I came to the same conclusion: I want to sweep aside these
> OO, imperative
> > toolkits, and replace them with something "genuinely
> functional", which for
> > me means having a precise & simple compositional
> (denotational) semantics.
> > Something meaningful, formally tractable, and powefully
> compositional from
> > the ground up. As long as we build on complex legacy
> libraries (Gtk,
> > wxWidgets, Qt, OpenGL/GLUT, ...), we'll be struggling
> against (or worse yet,
> > drawn into) their ad hoc mental models and system designs.
> > As Meister Eckhart said, "Only the hand that erases can
> write the true
> > thing."
> I think working on a purely functional widget toolkit would
> be a really cool project. Do you have any ideas, though, on
> should be the underlying primitives?
> Again, my goal would not be a "purely functional" library, because
> even IO is "purely functional". My goal is a "denotational" library,
> i.e., one that has an elegant (denotational) semantics, and hence is
> powerfully compositional and good for reasoning.
More information about the Haskell-Cafe