D2 GUI Libs

[retard]

Sat, 12 Dec 2009 17:44:34 +0000, dsimcha wrote:

> == Quote from retard (re at tard.com.invalid)'s article
>> Sat, 12 Dec 2009 11:53:50 -0500, Andrei Alexandrescu wrote:
>> > Eldar Insafutdinov wrote:
>> >> Right now we are working on a next QtD version. We dropped support
>> >> for D1, it is D2 only. I believe Qt suits all your requirements very
>> >> well. It's performant - we try to emulate as many C++ types using D
>> >> structs as possible, for drawing purposes. So types like QPoint -
>> >> are D structs and for drawing lines you can pass D array directly.
>> >> No perfromance hit. But of course we cannot avoid all of them, it is
>> >> still a binding. Regarding the license, Qt itself is LGPLed, QtD is
>> >> boost. you don't have to put any attribution. About stability of
>> >> APIs - Qt4 is stable within the major version. At the moment we are
>> >> working on signals/slots implementation. It is mostly complete, but
>> >> syntax may change. It will hopefully change once and stay forever.
>> >>
>> >> I would say that QtD is in the state close to that of D2, almost
>> >> there, but not quite ready yet. But we intend to release the next
>> >> version, which will be ready to use earlier than D2 anyway, I would
>> >> say within a month.
>> >
>> > I salute the decision of going with D2, as well as that of using the
>> > Boost license. If there is anything in the language that prevents you
>> > from getting things done, please let us know. The availability of QtD
>> > concurrently with that of D2 will hopefully push both forward.
>> I don't get why Boost license should be used. It's just confusing to
>> have yet another free for all license as it basically promises the same
>> things as the 2-clause BSD or MIT license. The only difference I see is
>> that the author of a Boost licensed software publicly admits that he is
>> a Boost fanboy and thinks the license somehow got better after his
>> personal deities rewrote it from scratch with NIH mentality.
> 
> Because the Boost license doesn't require attribution for works only
> distributed in binary form.

Isn't that kind of insulting towards the original author -- "Your work 
wasn't worth a crap. I'll take full credit. You get nothing, community 
gets nothing." Encouraging this kind of licenses seems really weird. Ah 
yes, zlib was also mentioned - so does one get any advantages when 
converting an existing D project from zlib/libpng license to boost 
license?