FLTK native in 'D'. Would that be useful?

Dave Dave_member at pathlink.com
Sun Jul 23 21:21:07 PDT 2006

Anders F Björklund wrote:
> 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) ?

Not sure I follow that either - have an example?

> 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.

I believe the OP was speaking of a complete native port, especially 
because he mentioned adding D delegates for non-static member function 
callbacks (a limitation FLTK/C++ currently has).

> 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.
> --anders

More information about the Digitalmars-d-dwt mailing list