FLTK native in 'D'. Would that be useful?
Anders F Björklund
afb at algonet.se
Sun Jul 23 17:00:12 PDT 2006
Charles D Hixson wrote:
> That thing about "native to D" is more important that it at
> first appears. On Linux there are two different versions of
> D with two different linking conventions.
> dmd, the Digital Mars D, doesn't link well (at all?) with
> system libraries. Some people have managed to make it work,
> and my hat is off to them.
> gdc, OTOH, uses the standard system linkages, but is always
> out of step with dmd. (Naturally. D is a moving target, and
> gdc is not a full time job.)
Not sure I follow, DMD uses "gcc" to link on Linux and GDC is
currently just one version behind (0.162 instead of 0.163) ?
There are several advantages of having a native D toolkit instead
of linking to one in another language, just not sure this was it...
As mentioned, the only problem I see (saw) with a native D toolkit
is that it can't use any system C/C++ header files just as they are.
In e.g. wxD, those are all kept in C++ so they are not really much of a
problem - whileas they are a big issue when porting instead of wrapping.
More information about the Digitalmars-d-dwt