On Mon, 20 May 2013 13:32:09 -0700, Dmitry Olshansky
<dmitry.o...@gmail.com> wrote:
20-May-2013 23:41, Adam Wilson пишет:
On Mon, 20 May 2013 12:28:16 -0700, Dmitry Olshansky
<dmitry.o...@gmail.com> wrote:
[snip]
* There is absolutely no chance of inclusion in Phobos, and
to-be-honest
I don't think it really belongs there.
Where you take that from? I thought it was quite the opposite if
written in D. Even C++ guys seem interested in GUIs in std library(!)
[snip]
I would LOVE to see it included in Phobos, but making it multi-platform
places an pretty hard requirement that it not be OS native widgets, some
OS's have widgets that others don't, some OS's have incompatible UI
declaration models, for example: WinForms is Win23 API calls where iOS
is markup. It is workable, but it is even MORE work than building a GPU
based UI toolkit from scratch. How big is Qt compared to WPF?
Keep in mind that Qt as other frameworks basically bend the whole world
into a certain ideology. They build everything anew from atoms (or
rather quarks) up. Strings(!), smart pointers, events, semaphores,
threads, containers, allocators, signals/slots, you name it - they
build it ALL.
Not to blame them - C++ std simply doesn't have it/cut it. D on the
other hand can leverage the incredibly flexible (but incomplete
currently) "framework" of Phobos.
Note that all of GUI frameworks are pre C++11 (hint-hint).
Agreed, however, I think with D/Phobos we are in a situation where we can
go the WPF route and just build on top of the existing work instead of
having to create a whole new "standard" library to accompany it.
Here's the deal. Building a GUI toolkit, particularly a useful one,
is a
massive undertaking. WPF is the single largest library in all of .NET.
IIRC it weighs in at 40,000 classes. Building a UI toolkit in D will
require something that D itself does not. A highly dedicated team of
people with many diverse skills. The project is simply too big for a
single person.
I sure hope savings in amount of idiomatic D code vs C# idiomatic code
OOP code could help here.
You have no idea...
Of course, I haven't seen the video yet :)
[snip]
Well, the video isn't NEARLY that broad in scope, but I do find on average
that the D code is about 10% smaller than equivalent C#. Although for
certain use cases like UI declaration with CTFE it could be a LOT smaller.
Well, then you'll also become an expert in a couple of cool fields ;)
Seriously a few helping hands are sorely needed.
Absolutely, but my point is that some of those are entire fields of
study and bodies of knowledge that can take years or decades a too
acquire.
I believe this is a fallacy as given the current pace of progress people
can then no longer hope to become experts anymore ;)
(Or at least in anything even remotely actual). A year or 2 is more then
enough to get to the state of the art, and amount of experience is not
proportional to inventing something new (and advancing the field).
Another thing to understand is that for example it took years to develop
classical analysis in math but nowadays it's just a couple of semesters.
Stealing a good vision from other expert(s) is a good interim short-cut.
Also believe it or not there is a quite large intersections between all
of fields you just listed (at least pair-wise).
There may be some truth to this, however, GPU's in particular remain an
area where specialized knowledge is required. Ask Manu. ;-) That said,
even if most of who we needed are generalists, we'd still need a small
army of them. Now this is open-source, and we can actually find that small
army. But organizing them is far more difficult than at a corporation, at
least there you have some unifying vision from the top. Out here is FOSS
land it's a free-for-all, and in projects of this scope that tends create
many competing visions, and implementations. Subsequently teams fragment
quickly and duplication settles in.
It's a bit unrealistic for first time GPU coder to write an
efficient shader.
And these change often enough that 5-years old experience has little
advantage - you still have to re-read all the specs again.
Sadly this is true, but you still have your domain experience, yes the
details changed, but the general processes and procedures you are used to
don't generally change that fast.
UI design is a whole field unto itself. Etc. My point
here is that no one person has a realistic shot of being able to acquire
and maintain the required knowledge single-handedly.
The only path is to develop even in teams is having a good taste
(=vision) and lead others to follow it. If you don't understand UI
design at all chances to succeed with you at head are low, ditto GPUs
ditto everything else.
[snip other good points]
Some days I wish I had the charisma and vision to develop that team,
because I badly want a D UI toolkit that can do with WPF can. I may or may
not have the right vision, but I am no charismatic. ;-)
--
Adam Wilson
IRC: LightBender
Project Coordinator
The Horizon Project
http://www.thehorizonproject.org/
