Re: [wxhaskell-users] wxhaskell vs. gtk2hs

[Gour <go...@go...>]

On Fri, 22 Jan 2010 17:15:00 -0800
>>>>>> "Conal" == "Conal Elliott" wrote:

Hello Conal,

Conal> I've worked with both wxhaskell and gtk2hs.  I prefer wxhaskell
Conal> for elegant design.  And I like that it gives me a native Mac OS
Conal> X look.  There is a partially working native Gtk for Mac, but I
Conal> don't think it works with 3D, which was a requirement for me.

This is nice to hear about wxhaskell.

Conal> In spite of these reasons, I'm using gtk2hs for the time being,
Conal> because wxhaskell has a problem that makes it very unfriendly to
Conal> ghci.  The second attempt to display a GUI kills its host
Conal> process.  This behavior is okay for many (but not all) compiled
Conal> programs, but is a killer for interactive/exploratory
Conal> development.  As soon as I hear that this problem is fixed, I'll
Conal> very happily return to wxhaskell.

Isn't it that, at one point of time, gtk2hs has similar problem when
working within ghci?

Conal> Longer term, I want Haskell GUI programming to move away from
Conal> these massively complex OO imperative frameworks to something
Conal> much more elegant and harmonious with the spirit and benefits of
Conal> pure functional/denotative programming.

I must say that I'm looking/reading your FRP stuff from the distance
thinking it's way above the head of this Haskell noob, but I tend to
agree that it should be possible to do GUI in Haskell in a different
way.

Do you consider it can be achieved on the top of present libs like
wx/gtk+ or it would require writing new stuff?


Sincerely,
Gour

-- 

Gour  | Hlapicina, Croatia  | GPG key: F96FF5F6
----------------------------------------------------------------