Someone mentioned the "application context" pattern in a recent post
on this list. I think that would be a great way to functionally
implement GUIs in general. The idea is that new states are generated
from previous ones and passed as a parameter instead of having a
globally defined state that y
That is correct. There is no reason that you need to compile the clj
files before running them. Just include the clojure.jar package and
everything will work fine.
On Feb 20, 6:41 am, Jeffrey Straszheim
wrote:
> If your CLJ files are in the classpath, and you include clojure.jar, then
> your g
If your CLJ files are in the classpath, and you include clojure.jar, then
your good.
On Fri, Feb 20, 2009 at 9:30 AM, rob wrote:
>
> What do you mean when you say there is no need to compile your program
> to distribute it? Doesn't that require end users to set up a clojure
> environment? And
The tip on compilation is really useful. Thanks!
On Feb 16, 11:08 am, levand wrote:
> If you have a Clojure namespace that uses gen-class, and if there is a
> method called '-main' within that namespace, then the resultant
> *.class file is equivalent to a Java class with a 'main' method, and
It's true, responding to clicks should not necessarily require
mutation, but probably anything beyond that GUI-wise would require
it. So I guess it's a minor quibble that one or two of the basic
aspects are not as elegant as they could be (thanks to Java). But
I'll file this under "worse is bett
What do you mean when you say there is no need to compile your program
to distribute it? Doesn't that require end users to set up a clojure
environment? And how would you deploy a web-based application without
compiling it?
On Feb 19, 6:51 pm, Kevin Albrecht wrote:
> I can vouch for using SWT
I can vouch for using SWT with Clojure. There is also no need to
compile you application to distribute it. I posted a little example
program on my blog here:
http://kevinoncode.blogspot.com/2009/01/creating-clojure-gui-application-with.html
--
Kevin Albrecht
http://www.kevinalbrecht.com/
--~-
Unfortunately, it seems that Jambi is going to be discontinued:
http://www.qtsoftware.com/about/news/preview-of-final-qt-jambi-release-available
There will be a 4.5 release and it will be maintained for a year.
Since Jambi is open source, its survival depend on the community picking up
the proje
On Wed, Feb 18, 2009 at 11:46 AM, samppi wrote:
>
> My impression is that if you build and compile whatever application
> you're making and deploy it using something like Java Web Start, the
> user usually doesn't have to do anything with regards to manually
> getting other libraries like Jambi;
My impression is that if you build and compile whatever application
you're making and deploy it using something like Java Web Start, the
user usually doesn't have to do anything with regards to manually
getting other libraries like Jambi; it would download it automatically
or something. And there
As an end-user of various guis - the "no extra dependencies" and
"instantly cross platform" points can be a huge win, for users, if not
for developers.
I regularly use tools like JEdit and JDiskReport and JXplorer - and
they *just work*. On Linux, and Solaris, and Windows, and OS/X. And
over ss
On Feb 17, 1:24 am, chris wrote:
> I believe you can create very good looking applications with swing,
> builder or otherwise as many people have done so (not that it is
> easy). I do believe a builder is a giant step forward but only if you
> have a design team that you would like to separate f
On Feb 16, 9:33 pm, levand wrote:
> I agree, Jambi is a better all-round product... but why the Swing
> hate? It's fine for what it is. Most of it's drawbacks (horrible L&F,
> poor performance) are things of the past, now.
If nothing else, the fonts aren't antialiased (at least on my linux
box),
I would have to strongly disagree that QT is a good idea for clojure
development. I have posted about this several times before but I find
that QT isn't ready for heavy java dev just yet, at least on the mac.
1. QT jambi will not run on the mac unless you are using java 1.5.
This is because QT
Thanks,
--
Laurent
2009/2/16 Dan
>
> Hello,
>>
>> Do you know of a good pointer that goes beyond the "don't use it"
>> argument, and really makes a thorough comparison of pros and cons of the 2
>> frameworks ?
>>
>
> I'm not saying don't use Swing, I'm saying prefer Jambi.
>
> My memory of Swi
> Hello,
>
> Do you know of a good pointer that goes beyond the "don't use it" argument,
> and really makes a thorough comparison of pros and cons of the 2 frameworks
> ?
>
I'm not saying don't use Swing, I'm saying prefer Jambi.
My memory of Swing is dated so I'd have trouble making a thorough c
2009/2/16 Dan
>
>
> On Mon, Feb 16, 2009 at 11:33 AM, levand wrote:
>
>>
>> I agree, Jambi is a better all-round product... but why the Swing
>> hate? It's fine for what it is. Most of it's drawbacks (horrible L&F,
>> poor performance) are things of the past, now.
>>
>> It would definitely be my
On Mon, Feb 16, 2009 at 11:51 AM, Tom Ayerst wrote:
> Also, don't forget that Jambi is a vanilla GPL 2.0, so make sure all your
> licenses are compatible and you don't mind publishing your source
> (personally I don't, but you should be aware).
>
> Tom
>
Only until Qt 4.5 which is due in march
Also, don't forget that Jambi is a vanilla GPL 2.0, so make sure all your
licenses are compatible and you don't mind publishing your source
(personally I don't, but you should be aware).
Tom
2009/2/16 levand
>
> I agree, Jambi is a better all-round product... but why the Swing
> hate? It's fin
On Mon, Feb 16, 2009 at 11:33 AM, levand wrote:
>
> I agree, Jambi is a better all-round product... but why the Swing
> hate? It's fine for what it is. Most of it's drawbacks (horrible L&F,
> poor performance) are things of the past, now.
>
> It would definitely be my framework of choice for a qu
On Mon, Feb 16, 2009 at 10:27 AM, rob levy wrote:
> So if I am right about these two facts, it seems like Clojure should
> include a native way of making applets/applications that both enables the
> truly functional style that Clojure is built on, and doesn't require writing
> Java to call it (it
I agree, Jambi is a better all-round product... but why the Swing
hate? It's fine for what it is. Most of it's drawbacks (horrible L&F,
poor performance) are things of the past, now.
It would definitely be my framework of choice for a quick, one-off app
or an applet.
-Luke
On Feb 16, 10:50 am,
> I know that all Java GUI libraries can be used within the REPL, but it is my
> understanding that in order to make it self-contained and executable (a jar
> or a class file), it is necessary to write some Java and call the Clojure
> code from the java applet or application. Is this true, or am
>
> I know that all Java GUI libraries can be used within the REPL, but it is
> my understanding that in order to make it self-contained and executable (a
> jar or a class file), it is necessary to write some Java and call the
> Clojure code from the java applet or application. Is this true, or am
Hi,
I know that all Java GUI libraries can be used within the REPL, but it is my
understanding that in order to make it self-contained and executable (a jar
or a class file), it is necessary to write some Java and call the Clojure
code from the java applet or application. Is this true, or am I do
25 matches
Mail list logo
