Re: New Ada portable GUI Library?

["Phaedrus" <phaedrusalt@hotmail.com>]

I appreciate the ideals, but...  Do you own a Swiss Army knife?  Especially 
the big one.  Does everything, even has a pen built in.  Lots and lots of 
tools, but it isn't actually a very good tool.  It's heavy, and it's a 
terrible knife.  By trying to hit so many targets it's achieved a sort of 
cult status, but I wouldn't want to have to use it for anything other than 
emergencies.

Sounds to me like you're trying to hit a similar target, and I suspect 
you'll have the same kind of results.  If it's simple enough for newbies 
it'll be much too limited for the pro's, and anything that the pro's would 
appreciate would be over the head of the newbies.  Remember, even having too 
many packages or too many functions/procedures/types in a spec can be enough 
to turn the young-un's away.

A tool should be simple and coherent in design, easily described and 
intuitive to the user.  That's why I suggested targeting something like the 
turtle graphics of GUI, with two words you've got a clear understanding of 
it.  Oh, and it doesn't hurt if it's appealing to the masses, too! 
(Wouldn't it be great if people thought of Ada as the EASY, PAINLESS way to 
develop apps?)

Brian

"Randy Brukardt" <randy@rrsoftware.com> wrote in message 
news:fmjlg7$n36$1@jacob-sparre.dk...
> "Phaedrus" <phaedrusalt@hotmail.com> wrote in message
> news:13oqje6labldu58@corp.supernews.com...
>> And you'll get better gas mileage, and your laundry will be 40% whiter,
> your
>> breath will be minty-fresh, and your naughty bits will be both naughtier
> and
>> bittier...
>
> Yes, that what we want (well, except for making ones naughty bits 
> itty-bitty
> ;-).
>
>> It's a simple, portable GUI that will allow newbies to get consistent,
> pleasant,
>> portable results, and help professional, seasoned developers to get
> consistent,
>> pleasant, portable results :)
>
> Indeed, that is what we were trying to accomplish with Claw (other than
> portability to non-Windows systems). Which only goes to show while it is a
> good goal, it isn't easy to accomplish.
>
> OTOH, it really should be the goal, even if it isn't going to get
> accomplished. I can't imagine why anyone would want to make something that
> will only work for newbies, or has unpleasant results by default, or
> whatever. It's better to set the goals high, so that you at least have a
> chance to get near them.
>
>                           Randy.
>
>