On Monday 21 January 2002 11:15 am, you wrote:
<snip>
> 5) This may be affected by the Abstracted GUI API, as has been discussed.
> If the API is standard and the backend toolkits are pluggable, the problem
> is solved.  

This is a bad idea: 
You end up here with a very weak GUI, using only shared features.

<snip>
> 6) Tk is inadequate, for reasons I won't go into here.

Why not go into it?  Do you have an agenda?  A very strong argument can be 
made for Tk: (1) it's cross-platform, now  (2) It is probably the most 
powerful toolkit available.

> 7) There are numerous powerful, cross-platform toolkits that could be
> chosen: there's a Qt binding, an FLTK binding, and FXRuby, to name a few.
> Each has strengths, and I'd really like to see a discussion that results in
> a weighted table of advantages and disadvantages so one could be chosen
> logically.

Anything but Tk, huh?

<snip>
> Windows and MacOS provided standard GUI  APIs, and they have prospered. 

These are OSes, not languages.

<snip>
> (Before this spins off into a Gnome vs.
> KDE argument, remember that Gnome was a direct result of KDE and the Qt
> license.) 

I think your history is wrong.

> Ruby deserves to be more than a server programming platform, and
> the only way this will happen is if a toolkit is chosen and included with
> every Ruby distribution.

Tk and Fox are both included. 

Didn't we beat this subject to death several times before?

-- 
Quantum Mechanics: The dreams stuff is made of