You know, I read the Fudgets thesis, and threw together an experiment which
used Glade for layout and Haskell for semantics [1]. As somebody else
noted, this isn't really a clean division, because of things like editable
flags in the layout. The darcs repository has a couple of demo
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
The actual presentation and layout of widgets would be better handled
by a DSL such as CSS (which is, in fact, declarative in nature), while
event logic would be best handled purely in Haskell.
Regards,
John A. De Goes
N-BRAIN, Inc.
The Evolution of Collaboration
http://www.n-brain.net
Could CSS give us semantic clarity? - Conal
On Mon, Feb 2, 2009 at 11:58 AM, John A. De Goes j...@n-brain.net wrote:
The actual presentation and layout of widgets would be better handled by a
DSL such as CSS (which is, in fact, declarative in nature), while event
logic would be best handled
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
The size, color, and layout of widgets has no effect on interaction
semantics and is best pushed elsewhere, into a designer-friendly realm
such as CSS.
Regards,
John A. De Goes
N-BRAIN, Inc.
The Evolution of Collaboration
http://www.n-brain.net|877-376-2724 x 101
On Feb 2, 2009,
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,
On Mon, Feb 2, 2009 at 3:28 PM, Conal Elliott co...@conal.net wrote:
On Mon, Feb 2, 2009 at 11:39 AM, Creighton Hogg wch...@gmail.com wrote:
snip
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
Well, that is also the idea behind Microsoft's WPF/XAML: they provide a
declarative approach to describe the widget tree (specifying what it is, not
what is does), and a GUI toolkit (Expression Blend) for artists and
designers so they can use a high level tool to build the GUI. You can even
define
Hi John,
I'm not sure how to interpret your remarks about has no effect and is
best. I guess they're subjective opinions, but maybe I'm missing something
objective in your intent. I can see, for instance, at least one way in
which layout has a direct and enormous effect on interaction
How do you define layout in a way that has a direct an enormous
effect on interaction semantics???
Regards,
John A. De Goes
N-BRAIN, Inc.
The Evolution of Collaboration
http://www.n-brain.net|877-376-2724 x 101
On Feb 2, 2009, at 4:31 PM, Conal Elliott wrote:
Hi John,
I'm not
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
So, if you don't mind, I'm going to stop trying to fit cubes into
round holes and gonna use reactive and fieldtrip[4] to do things.
Yes exactly, these projects are an attempt to make reactive programming (and
GUI programming is one of these) much more composable.
However it is still unclear
Hacking away on bindings to (http://libagar.org), specifically
(http://libagar.org/mdoc.cgi?man=AG_Object.3), I was suddenly swept
away by a general crisis of purpose: I was spending time on figuring out
how to create agar objects, implemented in Haskell, on the fly, to
enable me to write a
14 matches
Mail list logo
