IDE written in D

[eles]

On Tuesday, 30 July 2013 at 05:46:42 UTC, Trvhgoy wrote:
> On Tuesday, 30 July 2013 at 03:49:36 UTC, evilrat wrote:
>> On Monday, 29 July 2013 at 22:19:35 UTC, Chris wrote:

> Two important things that I miss in D are a D UI, as you said,

Choice of a good toolkit is a long discussion.

See this thread: 
http://forum.dlang.org/thread/vtaufckbpdkpuxyztyoi@forum.dlang.org

and my own suggestion therein:

http://forum.dlang.org/thread/vtaufckbpdkpuxyztyoi@forum.dlang.org?page=10#post-ksirfxsiejlweyhomwmh:40forum.dlang.org

that is, the FOX toolkit (http://fox-toolkit.org/goals.html).

AFAICT, the choice to take SWT (or other famous toolkit) and fork 
it, then port it to D (such as DWT is), is not the best option. 
For a simple reason. The D port will always be compared against 
the original toolkit, which will be almost always more advanced 
and a moving target. People tend to go with the brand, especially 
if the brand is well-known. It is a marketing paradigm.

OTOH, a good, but rather anonymous toolkit will be more 
appropriate, at least for the following reasons:

- a D-ported version of it won't be shaded by the original
- evolution is slower, so not a fast-moving target
- the team behind that toolkit will be more than glad to help, as 
their toolkit will gain in popularity, and could even be 
converted to D-development (instead of C or C++ or whatever)

> and a really good IDE (written in D, stand alone, 
> cross-plattform, open source, modern features and so on).

Before going into that, the toolkit should be chosen. And, 
obviously, the IDE should be written with the help of that 
toolkit. It will not be just a useful tool, but also a showroom 
for the toolkit (just like Borland's IDEs were for TurboVision 
and, later, OWL).