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 <[email protected]> wrote: > * Luke Palmer <[email protected]> [2009-02-06 01:09:45-0700] > > On Fri, Feb 6, 2009 at 1:02 AM, Achim Schneider <[email protected]> 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 > [email protected] > http://www.haskell.org/mailman/listinfo/haskell-cafe >
_______________________________________________ Haskell-Cafe mailing list [email protected] http://www.haskell.org/mailman/listinfo/haskell-cafe
