Move VisualD to github/d-programming-language ?

[Flamaros]

On Monday, 9 September 2013 at 09:31:59 UTC, Joseph Rushton 
Wakeling wrote:
> On 09/09/13 10:29, Russel Winder wrote:
>> It also appears that Microsoft are beginning to think the 
>> whole CLR
>> thing is on it's last legs.
>>
>> The whole "all non-Windows users have to hate C#" thing has 
>> some basis
>> in fact but also had a lot of FUD associated with it.  The 
>> "Mono hatred"
>> stemmed from that. So will Microsoft go after Mono with patent 
>> suits if
>> they are not themselves using C# and CLR? They possibly might 
>> as an
>> income stream, but it is unlikely to be profitable and so may 
>> be not.
>
> I think the Mono hatred/fear stemmed from a particular time in 
> Linux history which involved a combination of Novell's role as 
> a major driver of Mono in GNOME, Microsoft's very aggressive 
> patent posturing (although no actual lawsuits), and the close 
> relationship between Novell and Microsoft that culminated in 
> their patent agreement.
>
> I don't think Microsoft would ever bother suing over Mono 
> patents just for money -- the concern was always that Novell's 
> pushing of Mono was a Trojan Horse that would enable Microsoft 
> to take down the wider Linux community and Novell to clean up 
> on the business Linux side.
>
>> Without solid support from Microsoft the C#F#/CLR culture is 
>> unlikely to
>> remain strong, despite the serious success F# has had in 
>> making people
>> interested in CLR. And C# is not a bad language, in many ways 
>> much
>> better than Java. But Java has staying power in ways C#/F# do 
>> not.
>
> First-mover advantage, cross-platform for longer, less patent 
> fear ...
>
>> I gave Mono-D a whirl, but as I don't do any C# or F#, it has 
>> brought in
>> a huge amount of dependencies. My problem is I do not 
>> understand how the
>> "Solution" system is the same or different to everyone else's 
>> "Project"
>> system. I guess I do not have much enthusiasm to find out as I 
>> can just
>> use Emacs.
>
> Yes, the number of dependencies is very, very annoying if you 
> don't want to work with C#/F#.
>
>> GNOME vs. Qt may be religious to certain parties, but most 
>> people choose
>> either GNOME or KDE for the desktop and then load the other 
>> widget set
>> as well. I use GNOME but I have a many Qt-based things on here 
>> and
>> indeed develop PySide and PyQt5 based systems since GNOME is a
>> non-starter on Windows and OS X. Pragmatism is the order of 
>> the day here
>> not religious fervour.
>
> Yes, GNOME vs. KDE is the issue, not GTK vs Qt.  Installing a 
> specifically GNOME or KDE app will pull in a ton of 
> dependencies from the other desktop, installing a purely Qt- or 
> GTK-based app is much less heavy (it's almost unavoidable I'd 
> say to have both Qt- and GTK-based code on your system).
>
> I found this out recently when trying to install kcachegrind, 
> which wanted to pull in a ton of stuff from the KDE desktop 
> that really didn't seem necessary. It does apparently include a 
> "qcachegrind" package that's purely Qt-based, but it's not 
> packaged separately for Debian or Ubuntu :-(
>
>> I think that now that Qt has escaped from
>> Microsoft^H^H^H^H^H^H^H^H^HNokia, it will return to being one 
>> of the two
>> primary system for cross-platform GUI systems, wxWidgets being 
>> the
>> other. Thus I think QtD (fot Qt4 and Qt5) should be seen as an 
>> essential
>> component of the D milieu.  wxD should also get some presence. 
>> It is
>> great we have GtkD, but I cannot see it ever having any 
>> cross-platform
>> traction.
>
> I think that move is already happening and has been for some 
> time -- in fact I think the resurgence of Qt has been happening 
> ever since it was LGPL'd.  My impression is that GTK/GNOME won 
> out historically because the Qt GPL/commercial dual licence 
> meant that there were licensing compatibility issues even for 
> free software, and that there was a single commercial 
> gatekeeper for proprietary software.  That was an undesirable 
> situation to have for the core graphical toolkit of an 
> operating system, so GTK was preferred.
>
> I completely agree that QtD should be a priority project -- I 
> think Qt's importance is only going to grow.
>
> Perhaps this is a nice point to re-iterate my earlier plea for 
> consideration of Qt Creator as a potential cross-platform D 
> IDE? :-)

Personally I think that phobos contains some parts that are in Qt 
base, so a wrapper isn't a perfect solution for D. It's certainly 
the fastest way to extend the D framework and add a GUI library, 
but Qt phylosophy doesn't match perfectly with D. Just take a 
look to moc, in D it's possible and preferable to do without it.

That why we started DQuick to create a complete adaption of 
QtQuick to D, this is much hard to do but DQuick has the 
potential to be much more suitable for D.