Re: [Caml-list] A labltk book?

[Brian Hurt <bhurt@janestcapital.com>]

[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 1089 bytes --]

Dario Teixeira wrote:

>>Probably.  Its widgets are also much nicer looking, and apps written
>>with it don't look jarringly out of place on a modern desktop the way
>>Tk apps do.  (All IMO, of course.)
>>    
>>
>
>Hi,
>
>Still on the subject of toolkits, is there a reason why there aren't any
>OCaml bindings for Qt?  I mean, is it simply because no one ever bothered
>to implement one, or are there license incompatibility issues?
>
>I have used both Qt and Gtk before, and in my opinion, not only does
>Qt's elegance give it an edge over Gtk, it also feels like it would be
>a better match to OCaml.
>  
>

The problem as I understand things is that C++ doesn't play nice with 
any language that is not C++ or explicitly designed to work with C++ 
(cue Skaller).  This is especially true if you use the fancy features of 
C++ like templates and operator overloading, which Qt does.  Which makes 
it much easier to use in C++, but much harder to bind to any other language.

Note that this is true of all languages- it'd be a trick to write an 
Ocaml to Swing binding as well.

Brian


[-- Attachment #2: Type: text/html, Size: 1533 bytes --]