[Haskell-cafe] Re: Why binding to existing widget toolkits
doesn't make any sense
conal at conal.net
Fri Jan 30 02:15:15 EST 2009
2009/1/29 Gour <gour at mail.inet.hr>
> >>>>> "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 ;)
I don't mind if it takes a while, since I'm confident it'll be worth the
wait. Besides, compositionality yields exponential rewards.
Some more encouragement from my friends:
"No army can withstand the strength of an idea whose time has come." -
"The reasonable man adapts himself to the world; the unreasonable one
persists in trying to adapt the world to himself. Therefore all progress
depends on the unreasonable man." - George Bernard Shaw
Regards, - Conal
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
More information about the Haskell-Cafe