Ideal D GUI Toolkit

[Dmitry Olshansky]

20-May-2013 23:41, Adam Wilson пишет:
> On Mon, 20 May 2013 12:28:16 -0700, Dmitry Olshansky
> <dmitry.olsh at gmail.com> wrote:
[snip]

>
>>> * There is absolutely no chance of inclusion in Phobos, and to-be-honest
>>> I don't think it really belongs there.
>>
>> Where you take that from? I thought it was quite the opposite if
>> written in D. Even C++ guys seem interested in GUIs in std library(!)
>>
>> [snip]
>>
>
> I would LOVE to see it included in Phobos, but making it multi-platform
> places an pretty hard requirement that it not be OS native widgets, some
> OS's have widgets that others don't, some OS's have incompatible UI
> declaration models, for example: WinForms is Win23 API calls where iOS
> is markup. It is workable, but it is even MORE work than building a GPU
> based UI toolkit from scratch. How big is Qt compared to WPF?

Keep in mind that Qt as other frameworks basically bend the whole world 
into a certain ideology. They build everything anew from atoms (or 
rather quarks) up. Strings(!), smart pointers, events, semaphores, 
threads,  containers, allocators, signals/slots, you name it - they 
build it ALL.

Not to blame them - C++ std simply doesn't have it/cut it. D on the 
other hand can leverage the incredibly flexible (but incomplete 
currently) "framework" of Phobos.

Note that all of GUI frameworks are pre C++11 (hint-hint).

>>>
>>> Here's the deal. Building a GUI toolkit, particularly a useful one, is a
>>> massive undertaking. WPF is the single largest library in all of .NET.
>>> IIRC it weighs in at 40,000 classes. Building a UI toolkit in D will
>>> require something that D itself does not. A highly dedicated team of
>>> people with many diverse skills. The project is simply too big for a
>>> single person.
>>
>> I sure hope savings in amount of idiomatic D code vs C# idiomatic code
>> OOP code could help here.
>
> You have no idea...

Of course, I haven't seen the video yet :)

[snip]
>>
>> Well, then you'll also become an expert in a couple of cool fields ;)
>> Seriously a few helping hands are sorely needed.
>>
>
> Absolutely, but my point is that some of those are entire fields of
> study and bodies of knowledge that can take years or decades a too
> acquire.

I believe this is a fallacy as given the current pace of progress people 
can then no longer hope to become experts anymore ;)
(Or at least in anything even remotely actual). A year or 2 is more then 
enough to get to the state of the art, and amount of experience is not 
proportional to inventing something new (and advancing the field).

Another thing to understand is that for example it took years to develop 
classical analysis in math but nowadays it's just a couple of semesters. 
Stealing a good vision from other expert(s) is a good interim short-cut.

Also believe it or not there is a quite large intersections between all 
of fields you just listed (at least pair-wise).

> It's a bit unrealistic for first time GPU coder to write an
> efficient shader.

And these change often enough that 5-years old experience has little 
advantage - you still have to re-read all the specs again.

> UI design is a whole field unto itself. Etc. My point
> here is that no one person has a realistic shot of being able to acquire
> and maintain the required knowledge single-handedly.

The only path is to develop even in teams is having a good taste 
(=vision) and lead others to follow it. If you don't understand UI 
design at all chances to succeed with you at head are low, ditto GPUs 
ditto everything else.

>> [snip other good points]




-- 
Dmitry Olshansky