Ideal D GUI Toolkit

[Peter Williams]

On 21/05/13 16:21, Brad Roberts wrote:
> On 5/20/13 9:49 PM, Peter Williams wrote:
>>
>> Yes, if D aspires to be a systems programming language it can't keep
>> relying on wrappers around C/C++ libraries (especially C++).  In the
>> long term, it should be D all the way down to the OS API.
>
> You wrote this as if not using c and c++ libraries is a predicate for
> being a systems language.  It's not.

It is for me. I also won't count D as a systems language until DMD is 
implemented in D.

>
> What's with the D community's (yes, I'm over generalizing some)
> not-invented-here syndrome?  Avoiding the incredible body of existing
> code out there that's accumulated over the decades is foolhardy and
> narrow sighted.

I did say "in the long term".

> Are all c and c++ libraries great bodies of code,
> absolutely not.

I am not a fan of C++ (and don't really trust C++ libraries).  I went to 
C++ from Modula-2 due to job constraints but eventually ditched it and 
moved on to C - yes, I went from C++ to C.  The main reasons were that I 
felt C++ caused more problems than it cured.  Plain C is a perfectly 
good language for OOP as GTK+ demonstrates and there's no need for all 
the complexity that comes with C++.

>  Is some of the code that predates D worth reusing, yup.

Yes, but "in the long term" it should be replaced by D code so that you 
get all the many advantages (better testing, contracts, simplicity, 
etc.) that brings.  Redo the ones that suck first but do them all 
eventually.

Peter