[plt-scheme] Questions about modules in embedded system

From: Matthias Felleisen (matthias at ccs.neu.edu)
Date: Thu Oct 7 18:27:15 EDT 2004

There is no question that native toolboxes are better if you want tools 
for OS X only. I am happy to hear you're working on this. It sounds 
like a project that others who like OS X will be able to reuse later. 
-- Matthias

On Oct 7, 2004, at 4:32 PM, Geoff Schmidt wrote:

>  For list-related administrative tasks:
>  http://list.cs.brown.edu/mailman/listinfo/plt-scheme
>> This isn't an answer to your question, but out of curiosity, why did 
>> you decide not to use the PLT Scheme GUI libraries?
> One reason is historical -- I started out in Guile, so I already had 
> some code that used this structure. I switched to PLT for better 
> portability (especially to Windows) and better-packaged third party 
> software. (FTR, what I miss most about Guile so far is first class 
> dynamic roots.)
> One reason is technological -- OS X has some very nice GUI frameworks 
> and tools that it inherited from NeXT, which I could go on about at 
> length. Also, applications written in the "standard OS X" way get a 
> lot of OS integration (drag and drop, system events, Applescript, etc) 
> for free. Also, it would be difficult to replicate some OS X widgets 
> such as drawers using the PLT tools, and it would be more difficult to 
> completely follow Apple's Human Interface Guidelines. In development 
> platforms, I like to break as little new ground as possible :)
> One reason is personal preference -- it's always seemed to me that 
> GUIs written using an OS's native tools have a more consistent look 
> and feel than those that use cross-platform toolkits.
> Geoff

Posted on the users mailing list.