I don't think we need one large GUI toolkit.
We need orthogonal little pieces that could be combined together into a
toolkit... Less is more...
So first we need to identify what these pieces really are, what they mean
and how they can be composed together to make a bigger thing...
So what *is* a GUI anyway?
Anyway, I'm afraid as soon as you start with that, you will end up with
something like Reactive and Fieldtrip, which is still work in progress and
not yet proven to work, but it does not mean we can't discuss about it :)
On Fri, Feb 6, 2009 at 11:43 AM, Roman Cheplyaka r...@ro-che.info wrote:
* Luke Palmer lrpal...@gmail.com [2009-02-06 01:09:45-0700]
On Fri, Feb 6, 2009 at 1:02 AM, Achim Schneider bars...@web.de wrote:
I've been thinking a bit, and come to the conclusion that we should
just do it as others did it before: Start off with application-specific
tk's, figure out what's cool and what's compatible and then put them
into libraries. In short: Stop building cathedrals.
I don't know what you mean by TK, but whatever it means, I
wholeheartedly
support this sentiment!
I guess TK stands for toolkit (probably a graphical one?), although I
like Bulat's version :)
--
Roman I. Cheplyaka :: http://ro-che.info/
Don't let school get in the way of your education. - Mark Twain
___
Haskell-Cafe mailing list
Haskell-Cafe@haskell.org
http://www.haskell.org/mailman/listinfo/haskell-cafe
___
Haskell-Cafe mailing list
Haskell-Cafe@haskell.org
http://www.haskell.org/mailman/listinfo/haskell-cafe
