[Haskell-cafe] Re: Why binding to existing widget toolkits doesn't make any sense

[Gour]

>>>>> "Conal" == Conal Elliott <conal at conal.net> writes:
Hi Conal,

Conal> Hi Achim, I came to the same conclusion: I want to sweep aside
Conal> these OO, imperative toolkits, and replace them with something
Conal> "genuinely functional", which for me means having a precise &
Conal> simple compositional (denotational) semantics.  Something
Conal> meaningful, formally tractable, and powefully compositional from
Conal> the ground up.  As long as we build on complex legacy libraries
Conal> (Gtk, wxWidgets, Qt, OpenGL/GLUT, ...), we'll be struggling
Conal> against (or worse yet, drawn into) their ad hoc mental models and
Conal> system designs.

Conal> As Meister Eckhart said, "Only the hand that erases can write the
Conal> true thing."

Nicely said...

I'm sure you're not the only one desiring to write GUI in "genuinely
functional" toolkit, but, being realistic and considering how many people
are working on bindings for those "legacy libraries", I doubt we'll see
something written from the scratch and usable for "Real World Haskell"
soon ;)


Sincerely,
Gour

-- 

Gour  | Zagreb, Croatia  | GPG key: C6E7162D
----------------------------------------------------------------
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: not available
Type: application/pgp-signature
Size: 196 bytes
Desc: not available
Url : http://www.haskell.org/pipermail/haskell-cafe/attachments/20090130/82e608b0/attachment.bin