On Mon, 2009-02-02 at 13:28 -0800, Conal Elliott wrote: > On Mon, Feb 2, 2009 at 11:39 AM, Creighton Hogg <wch...@gmail.com> > wrote: > 2009/1/29 Conal Elliott <co...@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 > actually > be a really cool project. Do you have any ideas, though, on > what > 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.
+1 jcc _______________________________________________ Haskell-Cafe mailing list Haskell-Cafe@haskell.org http://www.haskell.org/mailman/listinfo/haskell-cafe