You want to implement it? I'm thinking that a wrapper around libcurl would be very useful as well. I know it can be implemented on top of socket primitives, but there is a lot of intelligence in libcurl that would be painful to reimplement.
http://curl.haxx.se/libcurl/c/ Regards, Elias On 22 April 2014 22:23, Blake McBride <blake1...@gmail.com> wrote: > I strongly agree. Also, sockets will give us better direct access to Web > technology (i.e. web services). > > Thanks. > > Blake > > > On Tue, Apr 22, 2014 at 9:18 AM, Elias Mårtenson <loke...@gmail.com>wrote: > >> I'd love to add trace (step) functionality to the Emacs mode, if the >> underlying functionality is available. Jürgen? >> >> A native library for sockets is an obvious feature to add. It should be >> rather trivial to do so. >> >> GUI interface is, in fact, less important in my opinion. These days most >> people do GUI's using web technologies anyway. >> >> Regards, >> Elias >> >> >> On 22 April 2014 22:12, Blake McBride <blake1...@gmail.com> wrote: >> >>> I know the history of J, and I agree with what they did. I also fully >>> agree with your observations regarding Tk. GTK+ is a far better choice >>> than Tk. There is one important difference though. Integrating GTK+ is a >>> huge job! Integrating Tk is much easier. Bang for the buck, Tk is a good >>> first pass at enabling a GUI interface of some sort. >>> >>> The work done on APL's file systems and code cleanups are far more >>> important to me. I just think that adding sockets and a GUI interface at >>> some point would present GNU APL as a total solution. Having said all >>> that, however, I certainly think the present course of tightening up the >>> code, adding more standard APL facilities (trace, stop, etc.), and a file >>> system are top priority. I am just bring up some of theses ideas. >>> >>> Thanks! >>> >>> Blake >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> On Mon, Apr 21, 2014 at 9:52 PM, Elias Mårtenson <loke...@gmail.com>wrote: >>> >>>> The J community seems to be pretty excited about their QT interface. Tk >>>> is easy to use, but results in horrible-looking applications that doesn't >>>> integrate well with the rest of the interface. >>>> >>>> If I were to implement support for a GUI framework, it'd be either GTK+ >>>> or Android, depending on whether I wanted to target desktops or mobile >>>> devices. >>>> >>>> That said, I have no intention to do either so my opinions on this >>>> matters approximately this much: ⍬ >>>> >>>> Do you have plans to implement this Tk support? If so, I will applaud >>>> your efforts and my preferences for other frameworks will not stop me from >>>> helping if I can. >>>> >>>> Regards, >>>> Elias >>>> >>>> >>>> On 22 April 2014 09:30, Blake McBride <blake1...@gmail.com> wrote: >>>> >>>>> Just an idea. >>>>> >>>>> >>>> >>> >> >
