From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: from concorde.inria.fr (concorde.inria.fr [192.93.2.39]) by yquem.inria.fr (Postfix) with ESMTP id 1FC86D6EC for ; Thu, 1 Sep 2005 06:25:48 +0200 (CEST) Received: from pauillac.inria.fr (pauillac.inria.fr [128.93.11.35]) by concorde.inria.fr (8.13.0/8.13.0) with ESMTP id j814PlnD004031 for ; Thu, 1 Sep 2005 06:25:48 +0200 Received: from concorde.inria.fr (concorde.inria.fr [192.93.2.39]) by pauillac.inria.fr (8.7.6/8.7.3) with ESMTP id GAA16499 for ; Thu, 1 Sep 2005 06:25:47 +0200 (MET DST) Received: from mz2.forethought.net (mzpi4.forethought.net [216.241.36.13]) by concorde.inria.fr (8.13.0/8.13.0) with ESMTP id j814PgMq004011 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=EDH-RSA-DES-CBC3-SHA bits=168 verify=NO) for ; Thu, 1 Sep 2005 06:25:46 +0200 Received: from [216.241.35.41] (helo=[10.0.0.2]) by mz2.forethought.net with esmtp (Exim 4.51) id 1EAgdu-0000d3-Mo for caml-list@inria.fr; Wed, 31 Aug 2005 22:25:38 -0600 Message-ID: <431682CE.5000100@havenrock.com> Date: Wed, 31 Aug 2005 22:25:50 -0600 From: Matt Gushee User-Agent: Mozilla Thunderbird 1.0 (X11/20050108) X-Accept-Language: en-us, en MIME-Version: 1.0 To: caml-list@inria.fr Subject: Re: [Caml-list] Does LablTk have a future? References: <4311DA63.4010104@havenrock.com> <200508301445.08793.jon@ffconsultancy.com> <3d13dcfc0508300847414abedb@mail.gmail.com> <200508301708.24941.jon@ffconsultancy.com> In-Reply-To: <200508301708.24941.jon@ffconsultancy.com> X-Enigmail-Version: 0.86.1.0 X-Enigmail-Supports: pgp-inline, pgp-mime Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Miltered: at concorde with ID 431682CB.000 by Joe's j-chkmail (http://j-chkmail.ensmp.fr)! X-Miltered: at concorde with ID 431682C6.001 by Joe's j-chkmail (http://j-chkmail.ensmp.fr)! X-Spam: no; 0.00; caml-list:01 labltk:01 subjective:01 non-standard:01 ocaml:01 ...:98 wrote:01 wrote:01 interfaces:01 native:02 hmm:02 necessarily:03 apps:04 awful:04 interface:05 X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 3.0.3 (2005-04-27) on yquem.inria.fr X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=0.0 required=5.0 tests=none autolearn=disabled version=3.0.3 Jon Harrop wrote: >>> Yes but we gain the ability to have a better interface on all platforms. >> >> >> Well, "better" is rather subjective. And not having the native >> interface means that people will say "oh, look, this is a non-standard >> OCaml program" instead on looking at the application itself. > > > > True. I think this is the lesser of evils though. Hmm, I'd like to think so. Jef Raskin[*] wrote something to the effect that we need better interfaces than what we have now, and something better will necessarily be different--with which I heartily agree. But in terms of "industry acceptance" in the near term ... I've been involved in a number of discussions of why Tk is awful (or not), and one point that always comes up is that users allegedly don't like Tk apps because they look different. -- Matt Gushee Englewood, CO, USA