ANNOUNCE - graphics package

Vlad Dumitrescu vlad_dumitrescu@REDACTED
Tue Jan 20 14:14:28 CET 2004

From: <Nigel.Head@REDACTED>
> > Defining the standard widget set for #1 is (should be) the same thing as
> > building a non-standard one.
> I beg to differ!

You are right too, but I think we are talking about slightly different

I see #1 as "application development" and #2 as "widget development". After
a widget set has been developed, it can be used instead of the standard one
without any changes in the application (except maybe specifying the widget
set's name at initialization).

> I believe the standard widget set for type #1 should offload
> as much as possible of the intellectual and practical effort needed for
> application implementation (and therefore probably flexibility) from the
> application implementer whereas the #2 approach should expose all kinds of
> customisation possibilities and hooks etc., at the cost of having a bigger
> intellectual footprint.

All widget sets can (but are not required to) have both a simple API
(allowing to do normal things without hassle, as you say) and a more
advanced one, even the standard one.


More information about the erlang-questions mailing list