GUI library/toolkit recommendation

[Tamas Papp]

Hi,

I want to write a very simple app in CL that does the following:

- creates a fullscreen window with a white background,

- left clicks paint the whole window with a color that is calculated
from the (x,y) coordinates

- right clicks exit.

It should work on X11, but other platforms would be nice too. I am
looking for recommendations on what library to use for this -- I don't
know much about GUI programming in CL.

In case anyone is wondering: I want to use this for LCD testing.

Best,

Tamas

[Morten Nygaard Åsnes]

Check out Ltk: http://www.peter-herth.de/ltk/
Should be available anywhere you can install Tcl/Tk, and is probably
the most straightforward Gui to get started with in Common Lisp.

[Madhu]

* Tamas Papp <jndfs5$7gc$1...@dont-email.me> :
Wrote on Fri, 27 Apr 2012 06:55:01 +0000 (UTC):

| Hi,
|
| I want to write a very simple app in CL that does the following:
|
| - creates a fullscreen window with a white background,
|
| - left clicks paint the whole window with a color that is calculated
| from the (x,y) coordinates
|
| - right clicks exit.
|
| It should work on X11, but other platforms would be nice too. I am
| looking for recommendations on what library to use for this --


| I don't know much about GUI programming in CL.

That didn't stop you from producing several substandard GUI libraries
for CL, IIRC CL-cairo and cl-2d , a few years ago?

--- Madhu

[Rupert Swarbrick]

Whoah! Impoliteness seems fine on this newsgroup but flat-out
unpleasantness isn't necessary.

Note that cl-2d is for plotting, using Cairo (via cl-cairo). Neither of
these is concerned with questions like "Where is the mouse?" or "Has
someone clicked recently?" or ...

This sounds like you'd probably like a lighter-weight solution than all
of CLG, but if you're interested there's a not-quite-so-broken version
at my Github repository (https://github.com/rswarbrick/clg). It
definitely compiles and loads with SBCL; I haven't tested other
implementations. Playing a slo-mo game of whack-a-mole to try and fix
assumptions that the original author made that aren't true in 2012
(either because of changes in SBCL or in Gtk).


Rupert

[Madhu]

I don't believe the question was asked in good faith, but was asked in
anticipation of Xach's reply, and subsequently to correlate
quicklisp/github bandwidth in response to the postings on this
newsgroup. aka an exercise in "advertising/market research"

--- Madhu (well aware of the quality and limitations of pappware)

[Rupert Swarbrick]

Madhu,

You chose to remove the quote of you being offensive when you answered
(I presume) my post. You have also given no evidence for your claim that
Tamas's post is advertising. In fact, he even explained what he wanted
to use the library for.

You speak of the "quality and limitations of pappware" without giving
any indication of what you mean (except for maybe some vague implication
that you believe it's rubbish). But this is irrelevant to the
conversation: as I explained in the previous post (which you also didn't
quote), as far as I know Tamas hasn't written any software that could
help him do what he's asking about.

In gnus-speak: M-2 0 0 0 L a s p <edit contents to "Madhu">. Probably
you shouldn't expect another answer from me on this subject.


Rupert

[Madhu]

* Rupert Swarbrick <s5lq69x...@hake.rswarbrick.dnsalias.com> :
Wrote on Fri, 27 Apr 2012 14:56:41 +0100:

| Probably you shouldn't expect another answer from me on this subject.

I wasn't expecting an answer which necessitated this response, either.
The answers you seek are probably in the archives

--- Madhu

[Madhu]

* Rupert Swarbrick <s5lq69x...@hake.rswarbrick.dnsalias.com> :
Wrote on Fri, 27 Apr 2012 14:56:41 +0100:

| In gnus-speak: M-2 0 0 0 L a s p

I suggest you use the kill file faciliuty instead to avoid seeing any
messages from me, and that would help avoid both of us wasting any more
time on each other --- Madhu

[Tamas Papp]

Thanks! LTK is fantastic. Here is the script that I wrote as a solution:

http://paste.lisp.org/display/129192#1

Maybe I'll make it standalone, there is no comparable utility that I
could find for Linux.

Best,

Tamas

[Tamas Papp]

On Fri, 27 Apr 2012 13:07:26 +0100, Rupert Swarbrick wrote:

> Note that cl-2d is for plotting, using Cairo (via cl-cairo). Neither of
> these is concerned with questions like "Where is the mouse?" or "Has
> someone clicked recently?" or ...

Indeed :-)

> This sounds like you'd probably like a lighter-weight solution than all
> of CLG, but if you're interested there's a not-quite-so-broken version
> at my Github repository (https://github.com/rswarbrick/clg). It

CLG definitely looks interesting, but I ended up solving the problem
with LTK. Now I have my dead pixel tester utility - in CL!

> definitely compiles and loads with SBCL; I haven't tested other
> implementations. Playing a slo-mo game of whack-a-mole to try and fix
> assumptions that the original author made that aren't true in 2012
> (either because of changes in SBCL or in Gtk).

I noticed that the library has some Cairo bindings. If you happen to
find maintaining that part burdensome, you might want to take a look
at cl-cairo2 -- it definitely underwent a period of neglect (I wasn't
using it), but Ryan Pavlik has taken over recently and he has been
very active.

Best,

Tamas

[Rupert Swarbrick]

Tamas Papp <tkp...@gmail.com> writes:
> CLG definitely looks interesting, but I ended up solving the problem
> with LTK. Now I have my dead pixel tester utility - in CL!

Cool!

>> definitely compiles and loads with SBCL; I haven't tested other
>> implementations. Playing a slo-mo game of whack-a-mole to try and fix
>> assumptions that the original author made that aren't true in 2012
>> (either because of changes in SBCL or in Gtk).
>
> I noticed that the library has some Cairo bindings. If you happen to
> find maintaining that part burdensome, you might want to take a look
> at cl-cairo2 -- it definitely underwent a period of neglect (I wasn't
> using it), but Ryan Pavlik has taken over recently and he has been
> very active.

Indeed! I've actually used them myself with some (very incomplete)
poppler bindings. CLG is a reasonably old project and I'm quite new to
it. There's a huge amount of cruft to do with supporting different
implementations, seemingly reimplementing CFFI, BORDEAUX-THREADS,
CLOSER-MOP etc. etc. [1]

As such, my grand plan is to gently take an axe to the codebase,
replacing such brittle stuff with calls to portability wrappers. And
also make the library a bit more rock solid. And maybe even add some
docstrings... And, of course, move to Gtk3.

The plan is to end up with a smaller library with the same functionality
and one that I (or someone else) could plausibly keep in shape.

If I can find a way to replace the Cairo bindings with calls to
cl-cairo2, I'll definitely do so. That's probably some way down the list
though, since I'm not using much of Cairo for the application I'm trying
to write with it at the moment.


Rupert


[1] To be fair, I haven't checked: these might not have existed when
some of CLG was written.

[D Herring]

(for any newbies who wander by)

On 04/27/2012 08:49 AM, Madhu wrote:
>
> I don't believe the question was asked in good faith, but was asked in
> anticipation of Xach's reply, and subsequently to correlate
> quicklisp/github bandwidth in response to the postings on this
> newsgroup. aka an exercise in "advertising/market research"

Good grief! Paranoid much?

While I've publicly disagreed with a couple things Quicklisp does, and
I'm disappointed that my own distribution experiment didn't go as
well, I still have a lot of respect for what Xach has done.

Hint: Xach isn't making money off of Quicklisp; it really is a
volunteer effort to help the community. He does some advertising --
that's how to spread a message -- but fake plants disguised as a
question that comes up every year or so? That's quite the stretch.

In the US, we have an old saying about "don't look a gift horse in the
mouth".

Madhu, if you want to contribute, that's one thing. But hatching
conspiracy theories and spreading unfounded rumors about open
projects? That's a whole other game. Look in the mirror.

- Daniel

[Zach Beane]

D Herring <dher...@at.tentpost.dot.com> writes:

> Hint: Xach isn't making money off of Quicklisp; it really is a
> volunteer effort to help the community.

I do make some money off Quicklisp. I accept donations, and people have
donated. I've use that money to go to Lisp meetings, buy computer
hardware, and buy a beer or lunch occasionally.

Zach

[Zach Beane]

Oh, and to pay for hosting, too, though the price for hosting is pretty
low. Amazon has a pretty great deal going for my Quicklisp needs.

Zach

[Madhu]

* D Herring <jnff9t$4h6$1...@dont-email.me> :
Wrote on Fri, 27 Apr 2012 20:57:32 -0400:

| In the US, we have an old saying about "don't look a gift horse in the
| mouth".

It would have done those greeks well to look up the Trojan horse at the
mouth. What is "Free" usually has a 10 million budget from stanford
capital.

| Madhu, if you want to contribute, that's one thing. But hatching
| conspiracy theories and spreading unfounded rumors about open
| projects? That's a whole other game. Look in the mirror.

You should stop being naive, or you should stop working for satan.

The library market isnt an honest about software, it is about bandwidth
advertising and about getting 3rd-party-controlled-infrastructure on the
customers machine on the google "people" model.

It would appear that the only people left here are the marketing types
whose value for the NWO comes from their loudness in shaping uninformed
opinion on this newsgroup. and marketing. So far we have an endorsment
for Amazon.

--- Madhu

[D Herring]

Hi Zach,

My original statement left room for misinterpretation.

By my understanding, you are accepting donations for a serious hobby
project and are not making any "real money" that you can rely on.

I wouldn't mind if you are making a small profit. You might want to
make an announcement if you do start pulling in substantial donations
(comparable to pay for the time and resources you put in each month).
Transparency helps people have fair expectations. Showing that the
community supports core projects is a success story for CL in its own way.

- Daniel

[antirealist]

On Friday, April 27, 2012 9:52:49 PM UTC-4, Madhu wrote:
> It would have done those greeks well to look up the Trojan horse at the
> mouth.

Actually, the Greeks were inside the horse. A common misconception.

[polos...@gmail.com]

> Thanks! LTK is fantastic. Here is the script that I wrote as a solution:
>
> http://paste.lisp.org/display/129192#1

sweet! here's a cute (aka Qt) solution:

http://paste.lisp.org/+2RPS

--

WJ: it's your turn, at the usual conditions:

time: max 5 years
size: max 5 LOC
lang: anything less rich than CL

(Can't wait to read you in ....2017?)

[Marco Antoniotti]

Only 5 years. Come on! It has taken him longer for shorter programs :)

MA

[namekuseijin]

Em segunda-feira, 30 de abril de 2012 11h16min03s UTC-3, polos...@gmail.com escreveu:
> > Thanks! LTK is fantastic. Here is the script that I wrote as a solution:
> >
> > http://paste.lisp.org/display/129192#1
>
> sweet! here's a cute (aka Qt) solution:
>
> http://paste.lisp.org/+2RPS

I have a feeling the above would simply be shorter, simpler and more straightforward as a C/C++ program...

BTW, I was under the impression that LTK would be some Lisp wrapper for TCL's TK. That would make far more sense as far as high level GUI programming goes.

That or racket's GUI module...

[namekuseijin]

yep, the Trojan was a "present" from the Greeks to the Trojans. Hence that other saying about greeks and their presents... :)

[namekuseijin]

you're quite insane, dude.

[Madhu]

* namekuseijin <29134876.455.1335806238049.JavaMail.geo-discussion-forums@ynce8> :
Wrote on Mon, 30 Apr 2012 10:17:17 -0700 (PDT):

| you're quite insane, dude.

And you are quite the brainwashed schemer who passed (really "failed")
the Scheme Personality Test. Please quit polluting this newsgroup with
your inane posts.

And you're ugly too

--- Madhu

[polos...@gmail.com]

> I have a feeling the above would simply be shorter, simpler and more straightforward as a C/C++ program...

let's clear some points:

- a GUI is always an *illusion* (it's not real)
- real things (like the chair you're probably sitting on) are made out of real physics
- the above means: you can *experience* them with your common senses, allowing you to discern from phantasy

but:

- computer programs are *not* *real*
- they fake physics creating a (quite perfect) illusion using a perfect philosophy (mathematics)
- when a computer program works, that doesn't mean anything *real* (as any illusion is possible in our phantasy)

so:

- yes, Lisp would allow for a perfect *simplicity* solution
- but that would be an illusion in it's own way, because:
- we all are made out of different, not interchangeable physical experiences

conclusion:

(sorry, I'm real, so I don't have the illusion to be of any value to your real, physical existence)

;)

[Pascal J. Bourguignon]

polos...@gmail.com writes:

>> I have a feeling the above would simply be shorter, simpler and more
>> straightforward as a C/C++ program...

>
> let's clear some points:
>
> - a GUI is always an *illusion* (it's not real)
> - real things (like the chair you're probably sitting on) are made out
> of real physics
> - the above means: you can *experience* them with your common senses,
> allowing you to discern from phantasy
>
> but:
>
> - computer programs are *not* *real*
> - they fake physics creating a (quite perfect) illusion using a
> perfect philosophy (mathematics)
> - when a computer program works, that doesn't mean anything *real* (as
> any illusion is possible in our phantasy)

I object to both points.

Physics tells us that nothing is real. Energy is only some
concentration of information; mater is only some concentration of
energy.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Holographic_principle#Energy.2C_matter.2C_and_information_equivalence
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Entropy_in_thermodynamics_and_information_theory#Information_is_physical

So your "real" chair, is no more real than a chair "simulated" in a
computer system.


And on the other hand, the things you have in a computer systems have a
physical base, as electrical charges around semicondutors in your
computer processor and memory, and as electrical charges and photons in
your LCD display. The image of the GUI window you see on your screen is
as physical as the image you may see of the chair on which you sit.

> so:
>
> - yes, Lisp would allow for a perfect *simplicity* solution
> - but that would be an illusion in it's own way, because:
> - we all are made out of different, not interchangeable physical
> experiences

I fail to see how that's relevant to the post you answered to, thought.

> conclusion:
>
> (sorry, I'm real, so I don't have the illusion to be of any value to
> your real, physical existence)

You're not anymore real than your chairs or your computer programs:
you're just some mathematical construct in God's mind.


--
__Pascal Bourguignon__ http://www.informatimago.com/
A bad day in () is better than a good day in {}.

[Kaz Kylheku]

On 2012-05-01, polos...@gmail.com <polos...@gmail.com> wrote:
>> I have a feeling the above would simply be shorter, simpler and more straightforward as a C/C++ program...
>
> let's clear some points:
>
> - a GUI is always an *illusion* (it's not real)
> - real things (like the chair you're probably sitting on) are made out of real physics
> - the above means: you can *experience* them with your common senses, allowing you to discern from phantasy
>
> but:
>
> - computer programs are *not* *real*

That is false. A computer program is real. You are heading down a dangerous
philosophical path here toward nihilism and reductionism. For all you know,
your consciousness and personality may also be software. Ergo, not real. You
don't exist. Not as you, the person, just as an organism.

> - they fake physics creating a (quite perfect) illusion using a perfect philosophy (mathematics)
> - when a computer program works, that doesn't mean anything *real* (as any illusion is possible in our phantasy)

A computer program is real to the extent that anything else that you call
"real" is real.

It can be pinpointed in space, and given enough effort, as precisely as we
like. For instance, the program's image can reside on a very specific area of
disk, and while running, its code and data, at any instant, is in specific
places on specific processor and memory chips.

It has mass, volume, temperature.

Would you say that a deck of punched cards driving a silk-weaving loom into
weaving a picture is not real? If that is real, why is an electronic computer
program not real?

[Tim Bradshaw]

On 2012-05-01 21:28:48 +0000, polos...@gmail.com said:

> - computer programs are *not* *real*

You'll change your tune when I turn off the one that's simulating you.

[daniel....@excite.com]

> A computer program is real to the extent that anything else that you call
> "real" is real.
>
> It can be pinpointed in space, and given enough effort, as precisely as we
> like. For instance, the program's image can reside on a very specific area of
> disk, and while running, its code and data, at any instant, is in specific
> places on specific processor and memory chips.
>
> It has mass, volume, temperature.
>
> Would you say that a deck of punched cards driving a silk-weaving loom into
> weaving a picture is not real? If that is real, why is an electronic computer
> program not real?

Of course the "program" is not the media - it is the sequential code - it is more ephemeral, for instance I consider that it is like a poem.

Is a poem real if it is written down? You can point the paper and ink. Is a poem real if it is not written down? Of course - but now it is like an idea. Ideas are real even if not written down and not told to anyone other than the original thinker-upper.

But of course the idea/poem/program is at least represented in the brain - and presumably the representation occupies media there.

What about an idea/poem/program that has not been developed by any thinking being yet? Can it still exist? Can a specific sequence of integers exist even though no one has "thought it up" yet?

And if so, are any bits of energy in the universe devoted to it?

Well, I'm off-topic; we were discussing computer programs that certainly have already been thought up by people and even transferred to various media outside of their bodies.

[William Clifford]

I restarted the universe this morning and I don't think anyone noticed.

--
William Clifford

[Tim Bradshaw]

On 2012-05-02 21:40:13 +0000, polos...@gmail.com said:

> My dear Common Lisp hacker friends (all of you), this one would be interesting:
> Please write a program to simulate toothache.

Do you think that's air you're breathing now?

[M. Strobel]

Which universe?

/Str.

[Marco Antoniotti]

I don't know. But there are only three elephants supporting the world right now. Plus they are standing on a giant platypus.

Cheers
--
MA

[polos...@gmail.com]

> Do you think that's air you're breathing now?

Premise: Mathematics is simply perfect, and Nature obeys mathematical laws.

In fact, it's so perfect that in 2012(!) many people have chosen it as their preferred superstition:
- past times: science didn't exist: so people chose natural but still unveiled/hidden laws as preferred superstition, mixing up things
- present times: science exists: so people build artificial realities (thanks to computers), call them "real", and choose them as preferred superstition, continuing to mix up things

Looking forward to the *next* generation, which will be finally given the possibility/chance to learn from *both* exaggerations!

:)

[Tim Bradshaw]

<polos...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> Premise: Mathematics is simply perfect,
>

Well, we've known that's wrong since at least Russell's paradox

[Ankur]

* polos...@gmail.com <polos...@gmail.com>

> Premise: Mathematics is simply perfect, and Nature obeys
> mathematical laws.

It's actually the other way; mathematics follows nature.

Maths is just a formal system. You can choose any arbitrary axioms
but it's useful when we make it model physical reality.

> present times: science exists: so people build artificial
> realities (thanks to computers), call them "real", and choose them
> as preferred superstition, continuing to mix up things

What's an artificial reality? How do computers enable it?

--
Ankur

[Nicolas Neuss]

Ankur <an...@lipidity.com> writes:

> * polos...@gmail.com <polos...@gmail.com>
>> Premise: Mathematics is simply perfect, and Nature obeys
>> mathematical laws.
>
> It's actually the other way; mathematics follows nature.

More precisely: "Mathematics" is more or less a synonym of our own
(logical) thinking processes, which presumably follow nature.

> Maths is just a formal system. You can choose any arbitrary axioms
> but it's useful when we make it model physical reality.

Yes.

Nicolas

[Tim Bradshaw]

On 2012-05-03 16:36:05 +0000, Marco Antoniotti said:

> But there are only three elephants supporting the world right now.

I hope you've raised the call to the vendor: the whole thing becomes
unstable with only two, so we really need the fourth rebooted.

[polos...@gmail.com]

> It's actually the other way; mathematics follows nature.

Maths is a philosophy, see ancient Greeks, and our all culture is based on their findings.
(So let's not destroy the basement of your own houses.)

Maths is completely independent from Nature.
Maths is a philosophical discovery, just like any other discovery. Long centuries were needed to bring Maths to the point where we have it now.

The interesting thing is: we can use Maths to describe things in Nature.
So, we can use a theory (perfect in itself, and this by definition) to describe physical/chemical/mechanical realities.
The conclusion is simple: both Maths and Nature share the *same* Intelligence.

So, how can you say that "Maths follows Nature"?
They are independent, but share the same Intelligence (which could be a hint for ... ... ...)

;)

[Nicolas Neuss]

polos...@gmail.com writes:

>> It's actually the other way; mathematics follows nature.

To say it again: IMO, mathematics is equivalent to "applied logical
thinking". You can logically deduce all of it from rather simple and
"evident" axioms.

So let's translate your writing in this way to see where it might be correct.

> Maths is a philosophy, see ancient Greeks, and our all culture is based on their findings.
> (So let's not destroy the basement of your own houses.)

"Logical thinking is a philosophy, see ancient Greeks, and our all

culture is based on their findings. (So let's not destroy the basement
of your own houses.)"

Strangely formulated, but probably OK.

> Maths is completely independent from Nature.

"Logical thinking is completely independent from Nature."

Nonsense.

> Maths is a philosophical discovery, just like any other discovery. Long centuries were needed to bring Maths to the point where we have it now.

"Logical thinking is a philosophical discovery, just like any other
discovery. Long centuries were needed to bring logical thinking to the

point where we have it now."

Strangely formulated, but probably OK.

> The interesting thing is: we can use Maths to describe things in Nature.

"The interesting thing is: we can use logical thinking to describe things
in Nature."

Yes, but not very interesting.

> So, we can use a theory (perfect in itself, and this by definition) to
> describe physical/chemical/mechanical realities. The conclusion is
> simple: both Maths and Nature share the *same* Intelligence.

"So, we can use a theory (perfect in itself, and this by definition) to
describe physical/chemical/mechanical realities. The conclusion is

simple: both Logical Thinking and Nature share the *same* Intelligence."

Maybe nonsense, maybe correct in that the intelligence shared is your own.

> So, how can you say that "Maths follows Nature"? They are
> independent, but share the same Intelligence (which could be a hint
> for ... ... ...)

"So, how can you say that "Logical thinking follows Nature"? They are

independent, but share the same Intelligence (which could be a hint for
... ... ...)"

Yourself?

> ;)

;)

[Marco Antoniotti]

Thought so. Especially considering that the platypus' back is far less stable than a turtle's.

Cheers
--
MA

[Ankur]

* polos...@gmail.com <polos...@gmail.com>

> Maths is completely independent from Nature.

Solve 1 + 1 = ?

How do you prove that your answer is correct?
To do so, you work with some axioms.

What do you choose as your axioms?

In order to "make sense", you need to look at nature and choose your
axioms to be consistent with nature.

Sometimes you may change some axioms (eg. non-Euclidean geometry).

--

Of course, it depends on what you mean by "maths".
<http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Definitions_of_mathematics>

--
Ankur

[polos...@gmail.com]

> Solve 1 + 1 = ?
>
> How do you prove that your answer is correct?
> To do so, you work with some axioms.

OK thanks, I understand.

So, to be able to discover Maths, you need Nature as proof.

But: the interesting thing behind is: even if Maths would have never been discovered, it would exist nevertheless (since it's a discovery).

And this is making my point:
Maths is independent from Nature, in the sense that it has always been there (in the form of Intelligence), and already existed before Nature (since Nature had a beginning), and will exist even after Nature will finish (science tells us that our World will have and end some day to come...).