<div class="gmail_quote">2009/1/29 Gour <span dir="ltr"><<a href="mailto:gour@mail.inet.hr">gour@mail.inet.hr</a>></span><br><blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="border-left: 1px solid rgb(204, 204, 204); margin: 0pt 0pt 0pt 0.8ex; padding-left: 1ex;">
>>>>> "Conal" == Conal Elliott <<a href="mailto:conal@conal.net">conal@conal.net</a>> writes:<br>
Hi Conal,<br>
<br>
Conal> Hi Achim, I came to the same conclusion: I want to sweep aside<br>
Conal> these OO, imperative toolkits, and replace them with something<br>
Conal> "genuinely functional", which for me means having a precise &<br>
Conal> simple compositional (denotational) semantics. Something<br>
Conal> meaningful, formally tractable, and powefully compositional from<br>
Conal> the ground up. As long as we build on complex legacy libraries<br>
Conal> (Gtk, wxWidgets, Qt, OpenGL/GLUT, ...), we'll be struggling<br>
Conal> against (or worse yet, drawn into) their ad hoc mental models and<br>
Conal> system designs.<br>
<br>
Conal> As Meister Eckhart said, "Only the hand that erases can write the<br>
Conal> true thing."<br>
<br>
Nicely said...<br>
<br>
I'm sure you're not the only one desiring to write GUI in "genuinely<br>
functional" toolkit, but, being realistic and considering how many people<br>
are working on bindings for those "legacy libraries", I doubt we'll see<br>
something written from the scratch and usable for "Real World Haskell"<br>
soon ;)<br>
<br>
<br>
Sincerely,<br>
Gour</blockquote><div><br>Hi Gour,<br><br>I don't mind if it takes a while, since I'm confident it'll be worth the wait. Besides, compositionality yields exponential rewards.<br><br>Some more encouragement from my friends:<br>
<br>"No army can withstand the strength of an idea whose time has come." - Victor Hugo<br><br>"The reasonable man adapts himself to the world; the unreasonable one persists in trying to adapt the world to himself. Therefore all progress depends on the unreasonable man." - George Bernard Shaw<br>
<br>Regards, - Conal<br><br></div></div>