Towards a native windows GUI
Thu Aug 18 11:33:37 CEST 2005
Joe Armstrong (AL/EAB) wrote:
> It seems to me that things went wrong at stage 4 - the very fact that you *need*
> a IDE/wizard/whatever to write the code for you seems the underlying structure is
> too complicated.
well, a nice-looking, complex GUI *IS* complicated. you need a GUI builder to
work effectively with GTK (and all other GUI toolkits). i think you're being a
bit rash in implying that this is because the GTK people are lame. you need
powerful tools to solve difficult problems.
> With GUI builders - the learning curve is steeper, interfacing to Erlang is
> painful, and forget dynamic GUIS.
glade is orders of magnitude easier to learn than, say, GS.
with gtkNode, you send erlang messages to the GTK widgets. not painful.
what is a "dynamic GUI"?
> The trade-off is "Easy to program = Ugly GUI" vs. "Difficult to program = Nice GUI".
optimally. i think it's quite easy to wind up with "Difficult and Ugly".
> Suppose we (say) implement an Erlang interface to GTK (there seem to be
> at least 3 of these), then the following problems seem to occur:
> a) The interface library won't build in my environment
> (it worked fine on the developers machine but particular combination of
> shared libraries/OS etc. needed differs on my machine)
> b) I have to learnt the GTK programming model in order to write a GUI
> (and is that fun? - no)
> c) The result is non-portable
> (ie the target machine must have performed a) successfully)
a) is non-trivial even if you use X.
b) actually, it is fun :>
c) many GTK applications include the GTK runtime (firefox, gimp etc). as far as
gtkNode goes, the problem with building a static gtkNode.exe for windows is in
getting the erl_interface stuff to compile, not the GTK bit.
More information about the erlang-questions