>On 12/1/11 2:59 AM, Walter Bright wrote:
>> On 12/1/2011 2:42 AM, Gour wrote:
>> I'd like to help with GUI bindings if D community would come more close
>> together here with some people ready to lead the herd...
>
> Why not you lead the effort?
I just went to the Qt DevDays 2011 and it looks
QML looks like it is (currently ?) targeted at the kind of GUI programming when
you make your own custom widgets for everything. It only provides the most
basic components such as rectangles, text, and images. There isn't, say, a
button components - you have to make one using a Rectangle and a M
"Joshua Niehus" wrote in message
news:mailman.1243.1322814889.24802.digitalmar...@puremagic.com...
> >On 12/1/11 2:59 AM, Walter Bright wrote:
>>> On 12/1/2011 2:42 AM, Gour wrote:
>>> I'd like to help with GUI bindings if D community would come more close
>>> together here with some people ready
On Fri, 02 Dec 2011 04:33:48 -0800, a wrote:
QML looks like it is (currently ?) targeted at the kind of GUI
programming when you make your own custom widgets for everything. It
only provides the most basic components such as rectangles, text, and
images. There isn't, say, a button componen
On Fri, Dec 02, 2011 at 09:46:25AM -0800, Adam Wilson wrote:
> The most important thing to a UI designer
> is that the UI looks and works the same across *ALL* OS's. That's kind of
> the point of HTML/CSS and the whole internet.
Actually, html and css are supposed to adapt to the user's envir
"Adam Wilson" wrote in message
news:op.v5vibnca707...@invictus.skynet.com...
> On Fri, 02 Dec 2011 04:33:48 -0800, a wrote:
>
>> QML looks like it is (currently ?) targeted at the kind of GUI
>> programming when you make your own custom widgets for everything. It
>> only provides the most basi
Adam Wilson Wrote:
> Facebook looks and works the
> same regardless of whether I pull it up in Chrome or Firefox, Mac or Linux.
Tried to look at it and thought it's some fraudulent site: looks like entire
facebook is in my adblock filters, lol.
Am 02.12.2011, 19:15 Uhr, schrieb Nick Sabalausky :
"Adam Wilson" wrote in message
news:op.v5vibnca707...@invictus.skynet.com...
On Fri, 02 Dec 2011 04:33:48 -0800, a wrote:
QML looks like it is (currently ?) targeted at the kind of GUI
programming when you make your own custom widgets for
"Marco Leise" wrote in message
news:op.v5vk4ov69y6...@marco-leise.homedns.org...
> Am 02.12.2011, 19:15 Uhr, schrieb Nick Sabalausky :
>
>> "Adam Wilson" wrote in message
>> news:op.v5vibnca707...@invictus.skynet.com...
>>> On Fri, 02 Dec 2011 04:33:48 -0800, a wrote:
>>>
QML looks like it
"Marco Leise" wrote in message
news:op.v5vk4ov69y6...@marco-leise.homedns.org...
> I really don't want to use MacOS X and find that application X's UI looks
> like WindowsXP or vice versa.
Interesting side-note regarding that: The dialog boxes in Chrome/Iron really
do look *exactly* like Vis
On 12/2/11 12:54 PM, Nick Sabalausky wrote:
Unfortunately, I've been using WinAmp as my primary player despite my hatred
for it because the iTunes lack of Ogg Vorbis support is a deal-breaker for
me...
Did you ever try http://xiph.org/quicktime/? It solved the iTunes ogg
problem for me.
"David Gileadi" wrote in message
news:jbbatc$1ksf$1...@digitalmars.com...
> On 12/2/11 12:54 PM, Nick Sabalausky wrote:
>> Unfortunately, I've been using WinAmp as my primary player despite my
>> hatred
>> for it because the iTunes lack of Ogg Vorbis support is a deal-breaker
>> for
>> me...
>
On Fri, 02 Dec 2011 10:15:12 -0800, Nick Sabalausky wrote:
"Adam Wilson" wrote in message
news:op.v5vibnca707...@invictus.skynet.com...
On Fri, 02 Dec 2011 04:33:48 -0800, a wrote:
QML looks like it is (currently ?) targeted at the kind of GUI
programming when you make your own custom widg
Am 02.12.2011, 21:19 Uhr, schrieb Adam Wilson :
On Fri, 02 Dec 2011 10:15:12 -0800, Nick Sabalausky wrote:
"Adam Wilson" wrote in message
news:op.v5vibnca707...@invictus.skynet.com...
On Fri, 02 Dec 2011 04:33:48 -0800, a wrote:
QML looks like it is (currently ?) targeted at the kind of
"Adam Wilson" wrote in message
news:op.v5vpeyg4707...@invictus.skynet.com...
> On Fri, 02 Dec 2011 10:15:12 -0800, Nick Sabalausky wrote:
>
>> "Adam Wilson" wrote in message
>> news:op.v5vibnca707...@invictus.skynet.com...
>>> On Fri, 02 Dec 2011 04:33:48 -0800, a wrote:
>>>
QML looks lik
On Fri, 02 Dec 2011 13:03:57 -0800, Nick Sabalausky wrote:
"Adam Wilson" wrote in message
news:op.v5vpeyg4707...@invictus.skynet.com...
On Fri, 02 Dec 2011 10:15:12 -0800, Nick Sabalausky wrote:
"Adam Wilson" wrote in message
news:op.v5vibnca707...@invictus.skynet.com...
On Fri, 02 Dec 2
a wrote:
> QML looks like it is (currently ?) targeted at the kind of GUI programming
> when you make your own custom widgets for everything. It only provides the
> most basic components such as rectangles, text, and images. There isn't,
> say, a button components - you have to make one using a Re
On Fri, 2 Dec 2011 16:03:57 -0500
"Nick Sabalausky" wrote:
> I agree the look of apps should be user-configurable, but that
> belongs at the OS/Window-Manager level. 'Course, I'll grant that's
> never going to happen on MS or Apple platforms, in which case, yea,
> using a lib that makes "system"
Am 03.12.2011, 07:14 Uhr, schrieb Alexey Prokhin
:
a wrote:
QML looks like it is (currently ?) targeted at the kind of GUI
programming
when you make your own custom widgets for everything. It only provides
the
most basic components such as rectangles, text, and images. There isn't,
say,
"Gour" wrote in message
news:20111203075455.6d9d1...@atmarama.noip.me...
>"Nick Sabalausky" wrote:
>
>> I agree the look of apps should be user-configurable, but that
>> belongs at the OS/Window-Manager level. 'Course, I'll grant that's
>> never going to happen on MS or Apple platforms, in which
"Nick Sabalausky" wrote in message
news:jbdp5t$2j0k$1...@digitalmars.com...
> "Gour" wrote in message
> news:20111203075455.6d9d1...@atmarama.noip.me...
>>"Nick Sabalausky" wrote:
>>
>>> I agree the look of apps should be user-configurable, but that
>>> belongs at the OS/Window-Manager level.
Am 03.12.2011, 19:20 Uhr, schrieb Nick Sabalausky :
"Nick Sabalausky" wrote in message
news:jbdp5t$2j0k$1...@digitalmars.com...
"Gour" wrote in message
news:20111203075455.6d9d1...@atmarama.noip.me...
"Nick Sabalausky" wrote:
I agree the look of apps should be user-configurable, but that
On Sat, 3 Dec 2011 13:20:49 -0500
"Nick Sabalausky" wrote:
> FWIW, SWT would probably be somewhere in the top 3, definitely above
> qt (because I *think* SWT is true native...?), but not sure how I'd
> rank it compared to wx b/c I'd have to actually try them both out.
Thank you for your input.
On Sat, 3 Dec 2011 13:16:14 -0500
"Nick Sabalausky" wrote:
> My ranking would be:
>
> #1: wx: Because it uses native controls on pretty much all platforms.
> #2: qt: Because for a non-native UI, it at least does a good job of
> getting the look & feel right. And I've heard that the API is nice.
On Sat, 2011-12-03 at 13:16 -0500, Nick Sabalausky wrote:
[...]
A few thoughts based mainly from Python use perspective.
> #1: wx: Because it uses native controls on pretty much all platforms.
wxWidgets appears to have the need in the C++ API for the programmer to
number each widget individually
> #84,259,254: gtk: Because it doesn't give a rat's ass about native anything,
> plus it's just plain ugly (read: big-n-chunky) on all platforms, even Gnome.
Using XFCE right now, looks fine to me.
On 2011-12-02 17:38, Nick Sabalausky wrote:
"Joshua Niehus" wrote in message
news:mailman.1243.1322814889.24802.digitalmar...@puremagic.com...
On 12/1/11 2:59 AM, Walter Bright wrote:
On 12/1/2011 2:42 AM, Gour wrote:
I'd like to help with GUI bindings if D community would come more close
toge
On 2011-12-02 19:15, Nick Sabalausky wrote:
"Adam Wilson" wrote in message
news:op.v5vibnca707...@invictus.skynet.com...
On Fri, 02 Dec 2011 04:33:48 -0800, a wrote:
QML looks like it is (currently ?) targeted at the kind of GUI
programming when you make your own custom widgets for everythin
On 2011-12-02 20:54, Nick Sabalausky wrote:
Actually, I absolutely hate WinAmp (and all programs that are entirely
skinned). And WinAmp in particular is super butt-ugly. *And* the UI overall,
esp. the library, is screwy (read: buggy and poorly architected) as all
hell. iTunes is irritatinnly all-
On 2011-12-03 19:20, Nick Sabalausky wrote:
"Nick Sabalausky" wrote in message
news:jbdp5t$2j0k$1...@digitalmars.com...
"Gour" wrote in message
news:20111203075455.6d9d1...@atmarama.noip.me...
"Nick Sabalausky" wrote:
I agree the look of apps should be user-configurable, but that
belongs a
On 2011-12-03 19:34, Marco Leise wrote:
Am 03.12.2011, 19:20 Uhr, schrieb Nick Sabalausky :
FWIW, SWT would probably be somewhere in the top 3, definitely above qt
(because I *think* SWT is true native...?), but not sure how I'd rank it
compared to wx b/c I'd have to actually try them both out.
"Russel Winder" wrote in message
news:mailman.1300.1322991626.24802.digitalmar...@puremagic.com...
On Sat, 2011-12-03 at 13:16 -0500, Nick Sabalausky wrote:
>[...]
>
>A few thoughts based mainly from Python use perspective.
>
>> #1: wx: Because it uses native controls on pretty much all platforms
"Jacob Carlborg" wrote in message
news:jbfnbk$rkc$4...@digitalmars.com...
> On 2011-12-02 19:15, Nick Sabalausky wrote:
>>
>> The hell with mobile, eh? Making things look and act the same on
>> everything
>> is *terrible* UI design. Making things look and act *appropriate* for the
>> given platf
On 12/4/11 6:00 PM, Nick Sabalausky wrote:
PyQt has an unfriendly licence for anyone wishing to
make proprietary systems.
I didn't know that. Do you know if that's specific to PyQt, or inhereted
from Qt?
This is specific to PyQt, they stayed at GPL when Qt changed its open
source license to
"Jacob Carlborg" wrote in message
news:jbfmq4$rkc$2...@digitalmars.com...
> On 2011-12-02 17:38, Nick Sabalausky wrote:
>> "Joshua Niehus" wrote in message
>> news:mailman.1243.1322814889.24802.digitalmar...@puremagic.com...
On 12/1/11 2:59 AM, Walter Bright wrote:
> On 12/1/2011 2:42 A
On Sun, 2011-12-04 at 12:00 -0500, Nick Sabalausky wrote:
[...]
> >PyQt has an unfriendly licence for anyone wishing to
> >make proprietary systems.
>
> I didn't know that. Do you know if that's specific to PyQt, or inhereted
> from Qt?
As David pointed out, PyQt stayed GPL and commercial licen
"Russel Winder" wrote in message
news:mailman.1305.1323019362.24802.digitalmar...@puremagic.com...
>On Sun, 2011-12-04 at 12:00 -0500, Nick Sabalausky wrote:
>[...]
>
>> >PyQt has an unfriendly licence for anyone wishing to
>> >make proprietary systems.
>>
>> I didn't know that. Do you know if th
On 2011-12-04 18:00, Nick Sabalausky wrote:
"Russel Winder" wrote in message
news:mailman.1300.1322991626.24802.digitalmar...@puremagic.com...
On Sat, 2011-12-03 at 13:16 -0500, Nick Sabalausky wrote:
[...]
A few thoughts based mainly from Python use perspective.
#1: wx: Because it uses nati
On 2011-12-04 18:11, Nick Sabalausky wrote:
Yea. I do appreciate how it's able to do so much with such simplicity (if
you ignore the bizarre semicolon rules), but only in the same sense that I
appreciate Brainfuck for the same reason.
I hide JavaScript behind CoffeeScript, makes it a bit more u
"Jacob Carlborg" wrote in message
news:jbgj74$2jff$3...@digitalmars.com...
> On 2011-12-04 18:11, Nick Sabalausky wrote:
>> Yea. I do appreciate how it's able to do so much with such simplicity (if
>> you ignore the bizarre semicolon rules), but only in the same sense that
>> I
>> appreciate Bra
On 2011-12-04 21:13, Nick Sabalausky wrote:
"Jacob Carlborg" wrote in message
news:jbgj74$2jff$3...@digitalmars.com...
On 2011-12-04 18:11, Nick Sabalausky wrote:
Yea. I do appreciate how it's able to do so much with such simplicity (if
you ignore the bizarre semicolon rules), but only in the
Le 04/12/2011 21:24, Jacob Carlborg a écrit :
>
> But the problem remains, CoffeeScript compiles to JavaScript so you are
> still limited by JS.
>
What about Lua ?
I find it pretty powerful for such a small language. And I do think it
makes sens to base a GUI on a scripting language. As for the c
Am 04.12.2011 12:50, schrieb Jacob Carlborg:
> On 2011-12-02 17:38, Nick Sabalausky wrote:
>> "Joshua Niehus" wrote in message
>> news:mailman.1243.1322814889.24802.digitalmar...@puremagic.com...
On 12/1/11 2:59 AM, Walter Bright wrote:
> On 12/1/2011 2:42 AM, Gour wrote:
> I'd like t
On 2011-12-05 08:13, Somedude wrote:
Le 04/12/2011 21:24, Jacob Carlborg a écrit :
But the problem remains, CoffeeScript compiles to JavaScript so you are
still limited by JS.
What about Lua ?
I find it pretty powerful for such a small language. And I do think it
makes sens to base a GUI on a
On 2011-12-05 08:17, Adrian wrote:
Yes it is - but did you ever tried haXe ? IMO it is the best cross
platform language around - you target JavaScript, Flash, PHP, NEKO, C++
and soon Java and C# with one language. Typesafe with type inference,
compiled and code completion support from the compile
Le 03/12/2011 07:54, Gour a écrit :
>
> Just, curious what would be your choise for multi-platform GU app: gtk,
> qt or wx?
>
>
> Sincerely,
> Gour
>
1) By far wxWidgets because it's native and stable
2) FLTK because it's small, fast and supports OpenGL, allowing for
custom interfaces. It's al
Am 05.12.2011 09:17, schrieb Jacob Carlborg:
> On 2011-12-05 08:17, Adrian wrote:
>> Yes it is - but did you ever tried haXe ? IMO it is the best cross
>> platform language around - you target JavaScript, Flash, PHP, NEKO, C++
>> and soon Java and C# with one language. Typesafe with type inference,
On 2011-12-05 10:24, Adrian wrote:
Am 05.12.2011 09:17, schrieb Jacob Carlborg:
On 2011-12-05 08:17, Adrian wrote:
Yes it is - but did you ever tried haXe ? IMO it is the best cross
platform language around - you target JavaScript, Flash, PHP, NEKO, C++
and soon Java and C# with one language. T
"Somedude" wrote in message
news:jbhquu$1mj2$1...@digitalmars.com...
> Le 04/12/2011 21:24, Jacob Carlborg a écrit :
>>
>> But the problem remains, CoffeeScript compiles to JavaScript so you are
>> still limited by JS.
>>
> What about Lua ?
> I find it pretty powerful for such a small language. A
On 2011-12-05 18:05, Nick Sabalausky wrote:
"Somedude" wrote in message
news:jbhquu$1mj2$1...@digitalmars.com...
Le 04/12/2011 21:24, Jacob Carlborg a écrit :
But the problem remains, CoffeeScript compiles to JavaScript so you are
still limited by JS.
What about Lua ?
I find it pretty power
"Jacob Carlborg" wrote in message
news:jbj0lo$mec$1...@digitalmars.com...
> On 2011-12-05 18:05, Nick Sabalausky wrote:
>> "Somedude" wrote in message
>> news:jbhquu$1mj2$1...@digitalmars.com...
>>> Le 04/12/2011 21:24, Jacob Carlborg a écrit :
But the problem remains, CoffeeScript com
Jacob Carlborg Wrote:
> Do you have any opinion about Dart from Google?
Google's MO is generally to take something bad... and make
it /worse/.
It compiles to Javascript, but script that doesn't actually work everywhere...
"Adrian" wrote in message
news:jbhr5j$1n9t$1...@digitalmars.com...
>
> Yes it is - but did you ever tried haXe ? IMO it is the best cross
> platform language around - you target JavaScript, Flash, PHP, NEKO, C++
> and soon Java and C# with one language. Typesafe with type inference,
> compiled an
Jacob Carlborg Wrote:
> I hide JavaScript behind CoffeeScript, makes it a bit more usable.
If you like the idea there, but want something a lot more conservative,
in my html.d (in here:
https://github.com/adamdruppe/misc-stuff-including-D-programming-language-web-stuff
)
there's now a Javascript
> In that project, Haxe's ability to compile the same code, in the same
> language, down to both server-side (PHP) and client-side (Flash8) has been
> an *enormous* benefit.
That's what Google Web Toolkit makes possible for Java. It's like SWT for
WEB plus easy connections to server.
Nick Sabalausky Wrote:
> The only problem now is that that would rule out the possibility of
> sharing code between both server and client - Which is *NOT* something I
> want to give up...
What kind of code is it? The main reason for the javascript
api thing in my web.d is to help minimize the
Adam Ruppe Wrote:
> Of course, it keeps the JS down to size... but doesn't actually let you
> run code on the client written in D.
Unless your client is a real application, of course :P
I did a Qt app using the modules from a work web app earlier
in the year. I interfaced with Qt via a message p
"Adam Ruppe" wrote in message
news:jbj23n$p68$1...@digitalmars.com...
> Nick Sabalausky Wrote:
>> The only problem now is that that would rule out the possibility of
>> sharing code between both server and client - Which is *NOT* something I
>> want to give up...
>
> What kind of code is it?
Fl
Am 05.12.2011 18:56, schrieb Nick Sabalausky:
> In that project, Haxe's ability to compile the same code, in the same
> language, down to both server-side (PHP) and client-side (Flash8) has been
> an *enormous* benefit. Just that one ability alone, even without the fact
> that Haxe beats the sn
"Adrian" wrote in message
news:jbkkpf$cut$1...@digitalmars.com...
> Am 05.12.2011 18:56, schrieb Nick Sabalausky:
>
>> In that project, Haxe's ability to compile the same code, in the same
>> language, down to both server-side (PHP) and client-side (Flash8) has
>> been
>> an *enormous* benefit.
"Nick Sabalausky" wrote in message
news:jblhn8$1vis$1...@digitalmars.com...
> "Adrian" wrote in message
> news:jbkkpf$cut$1...@digitalmars.com...
>> Am 05.12.2011 18:56, schrieb Nick Sabalausky:
>>>
>>> Why did I write the whole thing from scratch in D as a separate tool,
>>> instead of just ad
Am 06.12.2011 18:00, schrieb Nick Sabalausky:
> "Adrian" wrote in message
> news:jbkkpf$cut$1...@digitalmars.com...
>> Am 05.12.2011 18:56, schrieb Nick Sabalausky:
>>
>>> CGI. The only problem now is that that would rule out the possibility of
>>> sharing code between both server and client - Wh
Adrian Wrote:
> [OT] As a side point from a not yet D developer, but someone who looks
> at the language with great interest, but also someone with a commercial
> responsibility: I am missing big projects developed in D and the most
> logic project would be the compiler itself! I know this has been
"Adrian" wrote in message
news:jbnmoo$2seg$1...@digitalmars.com...
>
> The downside would be, that there is the risk of incompatibilities of
> the compilers, leading to 2 different dialects, which would force the
> users of both, only to use the subset of the languages. I have this
> situation on
Am 07.12.2011 15:16, schrieb Adam Ruppe:
> Adrian Wrote:
>> [OT] As a side point from a not yet D developer, but someone who looks
>> at the language with great interest, but also someone with a commercial
>> responsibility: I am missing big projects developed in D and the most
>> logic project wou
Nick Sabalausky wrote:
So anyway, with my own Haxe implementation, I can just add an optional
"-sane" switch to enable either a runtime or compile-time check...And nobody
can stop me!! Mwuuahahahaha!! AH HA HA HA!!! BWAH HA HA HA!@!!!
HAHhahahaAHHAAHA - As a long time haXe user I appreciate t
"Danny Wilson" wrote in message
news:jbrjp6$n54$1...@digitalmars.com...
> Nick Sabalausky wrote:
>
>> So anyway, with my own Haxe implementation, I can just add an optional
>> "-sane" switch to enable either a runtime or compile-time check...And
>> nobody
>> can stop me!! Mwuuahahahaha!! AH HA H
On 2011-12-04 21:17, Adam D. Ruppe wrote:
Jacob Carlborg Wrote:
I hide JavaScript behind CoffeeScript, makes it a bit more usable.
If you like the idea there, but want something a lot more conservative,
in my html.d (in here:
https://github.com/adamdruppe/misc-stuff-including-D-programming-la
Jacob Carlborg Wrote:
> Maybe you should take a look at SASS, it has if-statements, for-loops,
Yea, I've looked at it before (and like some of the ideas - their lighten,
darken,
etc. functions are nice and I intend to implement them myself as I find the
time - see color.d in that github page.)
"Jacob Carlborg" wrote in message
news:jbglgs$2no2$1...@digitalmars.com...
>
> I think CoffeeScript works really well, it's been around a while and it's
> the default way to handle JavaScript in Rails 3.1 and later versions (SASS
> is the default way of handling CSS).
That seems slightly stran
On 2011-12-04 21:40, Adam D. Ruppe wrote:
Jacob Carlborg Wrote:
Maybe you should take a look at SASS, it has if-statements, for-loops,
Yea, I've looked at it before (and like some of the ideas - their lighten,
darken,
etc. functions are nice and I intend to implement them myself as I find th
On 2011-12-05 07:59, Nick Sabalausky wrote:
"Jacob Carlborg" wrote in message
news:jbglgs$2no2$1...@digitalmars.com...
I think CoffeeScript works really well, it's been around a while and it's
the default way to handle JavaScript in Rails 3.1 and later versions (SASS
is the default way of hand
Jacob Carlborg:
> I think they're good languages, regardless of the indent-syntax or not.
> CoffeeScript and Ruby share a couple of language features that I'm not
> sure if Python does:
>
> * Instance variables start with @ (shortcut for "this." in CS)
>
> * Functions can be called without par
Am 04.12.2011, 21:17 Uhr, schrieb Adam D. Ruppe
:
Jacob Carlborg Wrote:
If you like the idea there, but want something a lot more conservative,
in my html.d (in here:
https://github.com/adamdruppe/misc-stuff-including-D-programming-language-web-stuff
)
there's now a JavascriptMacroExpander
On 2011-12-05 10:10, Marco Leise wrote:
Am 04.12.2011, 21:17 Uhr, schrieb Adam D. Ruppe
:
Jacob Carlborg Wrote:
If you like the idea there, but want something a lot more conservative,
in my html.d (in here:
https://github.com/adamdruppe/misc-stuff-including-D-programming-language-web-stuff
)
th
Jacob Carlborg Wrote:
> for e in arr
> # do something with the element "e"
Heh, I used to think that would work in regular Javascript,
since it does have a for(blah in something) form...
But in regular javascript, that only works on objects!
Marco Leise Wrote:
> This is really one of the largest shortcomings of the language that can
> not be explained with a simple design choice.
Aye. One of the newer versions adds a forEach member to the
array prototype, that works like this:
[1, 2, 3].forEach(function(element) { use element here;
On 2011-12-05 16:47, Adam Ruppe wrote:
Jacob Carlborg Wrote:
for e in arr
# do something with the element "e"
Heh, I used to think that would work in regular Javascript,
since it does have a for(blah in something) form...
But in regular javascript, that only works on objects!
Yeah, it
On 2011-12-05 16:53, Adam Ruppe wrote:
Marco Leise Wrote:
This is really one of the largest shortcomings of the language that can
not be explained with a simple design choice.
Aye. One of the newer versions adds a forEach member to the
array prototype, that works like this:
[1, 2, 3].forEach(
79 matches
Mail list logo
