GUI library for D

[Jacob Carlborg]

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.

-- 
/Jacob Carlborg