OpenMesh 1.9.5 ported to D

[Bill Baxter]

Jascha Wetzel wrote:
> Bill Baxter wrote:
>> Jascha Wetzel wrote:
>>> Bill Baxter wrote:
>>>> I ported most of the OpenMesh library from C++ to D 
>>>> (http://www.openmesh.org)
>>>>
>>>> It's not available anywhere yet, but it will be eventually, under 
>>>> the LGPL licence like its papa.
>>>> I'm mentioning it here now because I've just been lazy about putting 
>>>> it up.  But if there's interest, I can work a little faster at 
>>>> getting a project up for it on dsource.
>>>>
>>>> It's a 100% native D port rather than a wrapper.  OpenMesh is almost 
>>>> entirely templates, so doing a wrapper didn't make much sense.
>>>>
>>>> --bb
>>>
>>> neat! did you contact the maintainers? there is at least one D 
>>> project at the ACG group atm, there might be people interested in 
>>> supporting the D port.

How do you know? Are you a member of ACG?

>> Yes, I contacted them.  Initially I was trying to submit patches and 
>> stuff against the C++ version for improvements I was making there, but 
>> there doesn't seem to be anyone with write access who's interested in 
>> maintaining it right now.  They responded to my emails (eventually) 
>> but that was part of why I decided to just go ahead and port to D, the 
>> C++ version seems not to be much of a moving target now.
> 
> it seems that the c++ version is too complex to be commonly used. 
> apparently, only a small subset of the flexibility gets used. it might 
> not justify the complexity of the lib.

Huh, well compared to the alternatives (LEDA, CGAL, maybe GSL) I found 
it to be actually pretty lean, mean and straightforward.  And the LGPL 
licensing sits better with me than the licenses of some of the 
alternatives.  If anything is holding it back I'd guess it was the 
_lack_ of features compared to the others.

>> I also asked them if they would be interested in hosting the D port 
>> alongside the C++ port, but they said no.  Actually the one who 
>> responded to me only said "Good work -- never heard of this language.".
>>
>> So I'm just going to put it on dsource.
> 
> uh, that's kind of surprising. maybe that's because the project is 
> officially maintained by the group, but all the initial authors aren't 
> with the group anymore (all but the last of the listed contacts).

They said the group uses it regularly in their projects, so it sounds 
like it's not 'dead', it's just at a state where they're pretty happy 
with how it is, and nobody has time to tinker around with it much.   I 
suggested they set up an open repository.  Nothing.  So I offered to set 
one up for them.  Nothing.  Then I suggested at least setting up a 
mailing list for the project.  Nothing.  So I offered to set up the 
mailing list for them.  Nothing.  Then I submitted patches that make 
some improvements to the demo programs.  Nothing.    (By "nothing" I 
mean they responded to my emails, but didn't commit to doing anything or 
take me up on my offers.)

> anyway, i'd use it right away and help improving it, if necessary. i've 
> written two specialized mesh structure-sets by now and it's time to use 
> a single, generic solution.

Cool.  That was my feeling too.  So you're a compiler/debugger guru 
*and* a mesh wrangler?!  I'd probably still be trying to get the port 
working if it weren't for ddbg.  :-)  Just asked for the dsource account.

--bb