El 05/04/2011 15:32, Jacob Carlborg escribió:
On 2011-04-05 15:25, Matthias Pleh wrote:
Am 05.04.2011 15:06, schrieb Jacob Carlborg:
On 2011-04-05 13:08, Matthias Pleh wrote:
So I think for short or middle term such solution like gtkD, QtD, DWT
are good, but for the long term the D community needs a D GUI library
completly written in D.
Just my thoughts
°Matthias
You do know that DWT is completely written in D? Don't you think we can
create an environment for creating D GUI applications using DWT?
Yes, that would be an option. I have thought several times about that.
But I think, to get really acceptet by a wide range of developers, the
library must be adjusted, to suit better the D coding style. This way we
could get the whole power of D. But this also means that you get more
and more away from the java path and sometime you are not able any more
to merge changes in the java path to D.
So this means, this would really be a fork, not just a port.
(I hope, I have explained it correctly in my broken english, and I hope
it sound not rude :|
°Matthias
I see what you mean and I'm not seeing it as rude. It's hard to find a
balance where it's still possible to merge future versions and taking
full advantage of D.
DWT is an impressive achievement (as are gtkD and QtD), really. It's
great what it can do without needing other languages. Nevertheless DWT
might be in D and compile with D compilers, but looks more like "Dava"
(Java-like D) :-)
I was expecting a real D system (kind of forgetting its SWT origin) and
got a bit surprised when I browsed the code. Its very Java-ish (even
contains D ports of String, Integer, Runnable, File, InputStream, etc.).
What I mean is that I find it hard cosidering DWT "the One D GUI
library". It would not do D justice.
But, ugh, I understand that it's more practical this way, so
improvements in SWT can be adapted easily.
What would be the best solution? to D-ify more QtD? to D-ify DWT? gtkD?
Would it be worth? Just keep them as they are?
