dmd support for IDEs + network GUI

[Nick B]

Nick Sabalausky wrote:
> "Walter Bright" <newshound1 at digitalmars.com> wrote in message 
> news:hb05cv$2bru$1 at digitalmars.com...
>> Bill Baxter wrote:
>>> But it doesn't sound to me like it will be that much use to serious IDEs.
>> Possibly not, but for lightweight IDEs I think it would be of much use. It 
>> would also make things very accessible to Emacs and Vim, two very widely 
>> used programmers' editors.
>>
>> (One thing I like about Vim is I can run it remotely via putty. A 
>> graphical gui IDE is impractical to use remotely, and yes, I've tried 
>> remote desktops. Unusable.)
> 
> A different branch of the this topic started taking about (or rather, 
> bashing on) web-apps-being-used-as-desktop-apps, and I mentioned I felt that 
> was ass-backwards and that the focus should be the other way around: making 
> desktop apps work on the web.
> 
> What you say here is actually hinting at what I meant: What we need is a 
> proper GUI equivalent to something like TTY or telnet. Not remote desktops, 
> which really just act like streaming video, but something that'll say "Hey 
> client, host here, talking through something much more appropriate than 
> XML/HTTP, I want a button that says 'Ok' at (7,14) with size (50,20) on the 
> form 'FooForm', and if the user wants a skin, may I suggest (but not insist) 
> the 'buttonSkinFoo' that I already sent you earlier, plus I need a 
> user-editable textbox over here...etc." (In fact, I think X11 already 
> provides something like this in a slightly more low-level form)
> 
[snip]
> 
> Video game developers don't make multiplayer games by sending a compressed 
> video stream of the fully-rendered frame - they know that would be unusable. 
> Instead, they just send the minimum higher-level information that's actually 
> needed, like "PlayerA changed direction 72 degrees" (over-simplification, of 
> course). And they send it to a client that'll never insist on crap like 
> interpreted JS or open-for-interpretation standards. And when there's a 
> technology that's inadequate for their needs, like TCP, they make a proper 
> replacement instead of hacking in a half-assed "solution" on top of the 
> offender, TCP. And it works great even though those programs have visuals 
> that are *far* more complex than a typical GUI app. So why can't a windowing 
> toolkit be extended to do the same? And do so *without* building it on top 
> such warped, crumbling, mis-engineered foundations as (X)HTML, Ajax, etc.?


It sounds like you are talking about Immediate Mode Graphical User 
Interface ?

Have you checked out Hybrid (IMGUI) developed by team0xf  ?

See
http://hybrid.team0xf.com/wiki/

Nick B