<div dir="ltr"><div class="gmail_extra"><div class="gmail_extra">On Fri, Sep 27, 2013 at 9:02 AM, Conal Elliott <span dir="ltr"><<a href="mailto:conal@conal.net" target="_blank">conal@conal.net</a>></span> wrote:<br>
<blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="margin:0px 0px 0px 0.8ex;border-left:1px solid rgb(204,204,204);padding-left:1ex"><div dir="ltr"><div>I'm
polling to see whether there are will and expertise to reboot graphics
and GUIs work in Haskell. I miss working on functional graphics and GUIs
in Haskell, as I've been blocked for several years (eight?) due to the
absence of low-level foundation libraries having the following
properties:<br>
<br></div></div></blockquote>[Disclaimer: In accordance with the
principle that the amount that one speaks should be in proportion to the
amount one knows, about GUI toolkits I should say nothing <img style="margin: 0px 0.2ex; vertical-align: middle;" src="https://mail.google.com/mail/u/0/e/32B"> . Just offering my thoughts, more on the side of things I know -- programming languages and their history -- than not!]<br>
<br></div></div><div class="gmail_extra">When
I first heard of perl (early 90s) the claim was that the same language
ran on Unix and DOS. I was incredulous. Implicitly I believed that the
only program that could run unchanged on 'never-the-twain-shall-meet'
territory was something that tended to the limiting the null program:<br></div><div class="gmail_extra">main() {}<br><br></div><div class="gmail_extra">What
perl showed and the benchmark set for all the following scripting --
Ruby, Python etc -- revolution was that the old idea of C's portability
had given way to a new one. In the C world portability meant simply
passively avoiding non-portable features, in the new scripting world it
meant actively writing bridge code to reunite gratuitous differences: eg
the 'universal newline' in some languages like python.<br><br></div><div class="gmail_extra">In short: The C world had given up on portability.<br></div><div class="gmail_extra">The scripting language world chose to bite the bullet<br>
</div><div class="gmail_extra">That choice may be a bigger factor in their success than people realize.<br><br></div><div class="gmail_extra">So my point for the GUI question is this: In addition to Conal's list<br></div>
<div class="gmail_extra"><div> </div><blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="margin:0px 0px 0px 0.8ex;border-left:1px solid rgb(204,204,204);padding-left:1ex"><div dir="ltr"><div>* cross-platform,<br>* easily buildable,<br>
* GHCi-friendly, and<br>* OpenGL-compatible.<br>
</div></div></blockquote><br></div><div class="gmail_extra">there are two other current holy-grails to chase:<br></div><div class="gmail_extra"><br>a. Browser-Desktop portability: eg pyjamas<br><a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pyjamas_%28software%29">http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pyjamas_%28software%29</a><br>
<br></div><div class="gmail_extra">b.
Touch devices allowing for 'Natural user interface'[1]: Generalizing
the 40 year old mouse-model to modern touch devices eg <br><a href="http://kivy.org/#home">http://kivy.org/#home</a><br><br></div><div class="gmail_extra">How difficult/doable is this? As I said, I am too much of an ignoramus to know.<br>
<br></div><div class="gmail_extra">Hopefully the perl/scripting-language example will prompt more knowledgeable/capable persons to at least consider the possibility of chewing on a bullet…<br><br><br>[1] <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Natural_User_Interface">http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Natural_User_Interface</a><br>
<br><br></div><div class="gmail_extra"></div><div class="gmail_extra">Rusi<br></div><div class="gmail_extra"><br>-- <br><br><a href="http://blog.languager.org" target="_blank">http://blog.languager.org</a><br><br>
</div></div>