On 27 January 2012 18:38, Kagamin <[email protected]> wrote: > On Wednesday, 25 January 2012 at 18:01:48 UTC, Zachary Lund wrote: >> >> I do not mind using a C library in D because of how straight forward it >> is. But simply mentioning C++ in D seems to add unneeded complexity which >> should be avoided. I think the answer to a question such as "What's the >> alternative to Qt in D?" should not be "Qt bindings" but maybe a library >> which imitates the implementation and/or interface of Qt UI widgets in >> native D. > > > http://www.ohloh.net/p/qt/estimated_cost > some scary numbers
To be taken with a pinch of salt. I raised an eyebrow or two when looking at the estimated cost for GDC. ;-) -- Iain Buclaw *(p < e ? p++ : p) = (c & 0x0f) + '0';
