From: W. Kent Starr [mailto:elderburn / mindspring.com]

> On Tuesday 20 March 2001 16:22, Nathaniel Talbott wrote:
> > Hmmm... I don't know about a dream... but it is OK :-) I guess I'd like
> > something that was a little more rubified than the OOP-like C code of
Gtk.
> > The extension does an excellent job of wrapping it, but it can only hide
so
> > much. It seems a bit hard to extend, too. OTOH, from what I've seen of
Tk,
> > Gtk is much, much better.
>
> If I'm not mistaken, while the "OOP-like C code", as well as
> Ada and Perl
> (latter with an extension download) can be generated from
> within a Glade
> session, the actual Glade resource files are output in XML.
> Thus, anything
> which can parse the XML can output final source in Ruby or whatever.

Sorry if I wasn't clear, but I wasn't talking about Glade (which I haven't
used, for better or for worse). I was referring to Gtk itself and its
internals (which are, indeed, OO C code [which comes out better than a lot
of C++ code I've seen, but that's another topic altogether :-) ]). I don't
mean to put down Gtk; I think it's one of the best UI options for Ruby at
the moment (though I haven't checked out FOX yet); I guess I'd just like to
see a more pure Ruby toolkit -- like Swing written in a real language :-)

There's been discussion of doing something like this in the past; the
general consensus has been that it is nearly impossible (not in exactly
those words, but that's the tone that seems to get communicated... sorry if
I'm misreading it). My personal belief is that it's easily within the realm
of possibility; OTOH, I don't have any time to dedicate towards it now, so
I'll just go use Gtk and be happy about it :-)

Oh, one other thing... wouldn't it be great to see a fully unit tested UI
toolkit? Every time I work around a Swing bug, that's what goes through my
mind :-)


Nathaniel

<:((><
+ - -						+ - -
| RoleModel Software, Inc. &		| EQUIP VI
| The XP Software Studio(TM)		|