[Haskell-cafe] Re: Why binding to existing widget toolkits doesn't
make any sense
John A. De Goes
john at n-brain.net
Tue Feb 3 15:19:03 EST 2009
CSS is purely declarative in nature and entirely deterministic.
Moreover, it's expressive power is such that you can completely and
radically alter the look of a website with modifications to CSS alone
(see Zen Garden). The grammar and semantics are relatively simple and
can be interpreted and generated by tools, which means that a designer
can work with CSS files without knowing anything about CSS.
Is it perfect? No. But it's a lot better than trying to encode
everything in a single language that only a software developer can
safely work with.
John A. De Goes
The Evolution of Collaboration
http://www.n-brain.net | 877-376-2724 x 101
On Feb 3, 2009, at 10:09 AM, Peter Verswyvelen wrote:
> On Tue, Feb 3, 2009 at 5:49 PM, John A. De Goes <john at n-brain.net>
> I never said, "CSS", I said "like CSS".
> Oh, I missed the "like" word! What do you mean with that? What
> aspects of CSS do you prefer to? In WPF a "style" is basically just
> a bunch of attribute key/value pairs.
> Layout combinators in the spirit of TeX or Lout are more
> flexible while being simpler. In any case, a simple primitive
> grid :: [[Rect a]] -> Rect a
> that arranges widgets in a rectangular grid should be enough for GUIs.
> Spoken like a true programmer who knows nothing about usability. :-)
> Yes, layout must be very versatile and user definable.
> John A. De Goes
> N-BRAIN, Inc.
> The Evolution of Collaboration
> http://www.n-brain.net | 877-376-2724 x 101
> Haskell-Cafe mailing list
> Haskell-Cafe at haskell.org
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
More information about the Haskell-Cafe