D2 GUI Libs

Lutger lutger.blijdestijn at gmail.com
Sat Dec 12 10:55:06 PST 2009


retard wrote:

> 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?

Some corporations won't use licenses which require attribution (and even 
will rather pay for code instead), so they will automatically drop D as a 
language if such a license is adopted. 

If you want to know more about the boost license, this page has the 
background on it including the rationale and history: 
http://www.boost.org/users/license.html



More information about the Digitalmars-d mailing list