GUI library for D

[Jacob Carlborg]

On 2011-04-06 09:00, Jacob Carlborg wrote:
> On 2011-04-05 23:15, Alvaro wrote:
>> El 05/04/2011 15:32, Jacob Carlborg escribió:
>>> On 2011-04-05 15:25, Matthias Pleh wrote:
>>>> Am 05.04.2011 15:06, schrieb Jacob Carlborg:
>>>>> On 2011-04-05 13:08, Matthias Pleh wrote:
>>>>>> So I think for short or middle term such solution like gtkD, QtD, DWT
>>>>>> are good, but for the long term the D community needs a D GUI library
>>>>>> completly written in D.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Just my thoughts
>>>>>> °Matthias
>>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> You do know that DWT is completely written in D? Don't you think we
>>>>> can
>>>>> create an environment for creating D GUI applications using DWT?
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>> Yes, that would be an option. I have thought several times about that.
>>>> But I think, to get really acceptet by a wide range of developers, the
>>>> library must be adjusted, to suit better the D coding style. This
>>>> way we
>>>> could get the whole power of D. But this also means that you get more
>>>> and more away from the java path and sometime you are not able any more
>>>> to merge changes in the java path to D.
>>>> So this means, this would really be a fork, not just a port.
>>>> (I hope, I have explained it correctly in my broken english, and I hope
>>>> it sound not rude :|
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> °Matthias
>>>
>>> I see what you mean and I'm not seeing it as rude. It's hard to find a
>>> balance where it's still possible to merge future versions and taking
>>> full advantage of D.
>>>
>>
>> DWT is an impressive achievement (as are gtkD and QtD), really. It's
>> great what it can do without needing other languages. Nevertheless DWT
>> might be in D and compile with D compilers, but looks more like "Dava"
>> (Java-like D) :-)
>>
>> I was expecting a real D system (kind of forgetting its SWT origin) and
>> got a bit surprised when I browsed the code. Its very Java-ish (even
>> contains D ports of String, Integer, Runnable, File, InputStream, etc.).
>> What I mean is that I find it hard cosidering DWT "the One D GUI
>> library". It would not do D justice.
>>
>> But, ugh, I understand that it's more practical this way, so
>> improvements in SWT can be adapted easily.
>>
>> What would be the best solution? to D-ify more QtD? to D-ify DWT? gtkD?
>> Would it be worth? Just keep them as they are?
>
> I think gtkD is out of the question since it's not using native
> controls. Don't know about QtD, if I recall correctly it, at least,
> looks quite native. But I would guess it would too hard to find whole
> int that, specially on Mac OS X.
>

That would be "find a hole in that" not "find whole int that".

-- 
/Jacob Carlborg