On Saturday, 31 January 2015 at 09:24:21 UTC, user wrote:
> I don't know, you sound like a perfectionist to me, like most of other community members. I can only give examples from my experience.

I judge exclusively by existing precedents and knowledge of D development process. DFL was officially endorsed at some point, it didn't make any difference. You hold an assumption that putting something in Phobos will oblige people to work on it further - but it doesn't work that way. We will simply have another bitrotting barely used Phobos package.

Only way to have long-living GUI package is getting critical mass of users and contributors for it. One doesn't need Phobos inclusion for that.

On Sunday, 1 February 2015 at 12:33:31 UTC, Dicebot wrote:
> On Saturday, 31 January 2015 at 09:24:21 UTC, user wrote:

> development process. DFL was officially endorsed at some point,

err... DWT

On Sunday, 1 February 2015 at 12:46:08 UTC, eles wrote:
> On Sunday, 1 February 2015 at 12:33:31 UTC, Dicebot wrote:
>> On Saturday, 31 January 2015 at 09:24:21 UTC, user wrote:
>
>> development process. DFL was officially endorsed at some point,
>
> err... DWT

or I might be wrong & mea culpa

On Sunday, 1 February 2015 at 12:47:04 UTC, eles wrote:
> On Sunday, 1 February 2015 at 12:46:08 UTC, eles wrote:
>> On Sunday, 1 February 2015 at 12:33:31 UTC, Dicebot wrote:
>>> On Saturday, 31 January 2015 at 09:24:21 UTC, user wrote:
>>
>>> development process. DFL was officially endorsed at some point,
>>
>> err... DWT
>
> or I might be wrong & mea culpa

Oh,those are not the same? Sort, have never used either. Anyway, one of them was :)

On 2015-02-01 13:33, Dicebot wrote:

> I judge exclusively by existing precedents and knowledge of D
> development process. DFL was officially endorsed at some point, it
> didn't make any difference.

1. It was DWT

2. To be far, nothing in practice was done more than saying "DWT is the official GUI library for D" in a newsgroup post, probably deep instead an already existing thread. No mention on the web site, no move of the code to the same place as the core D repositories. Not bundled with the compiler, no contribution from the core developers, nothing. So no, of course it didn't help.

-- 
/Jacob Carlborg

On Sunday, 1 February 2015 at 19:30:27 UTC, Jacob Carlborg wrote:
> On 2015-02-01 13:33, Dicebot wrote:
>
>> I judge exclusively by existing precedents and knowledge of D
>> development process. DFL was officially endorsed at some point, it
>> didn't make any difference.
>
> 1. It was DWT

Yep, sorry, have never realized those are different, my mistake.

> 2. To be far, nothing in practice was done more than saying "DWT is the official GUI library for D" in a newsgroup post, probably deep instead an already existing thread. No mention on the web site, no move of the code to the same place as the core D repositories. Not bundled with the compiler, no contribution from the core developers, nothing. So no, of course it didn't help.

Probbaly. But do you honestly believe including actual sources into Phobos would have made any real difference? I doubt core developers would work on it one way or the other - that is a huge waste of effort. And it wouldn't fit everyone on user side either.

On Sunday, 1 February 2015 at 21:38:33 UTC, Dicebot wrote:
> Probbaly. But do you honestly believe including actual sources into Phobos would have made any real difference? I doubt core developers would work on it one way or the other - that is a huge waste of effort. And it wouldn't fit everyone on user side either.

Having something would be better than having nothing, and I for one would be much more willing to contribute to a gui library if I knew it was going into phobos.

On Sun, 01 Feb 2015 21:38:31 +0000, Dicebot wrote:

> Probbaly. But do you honestly believe including actual sources into Phobos would have made any real difference? I doubt core developers would work on it one way or the other - that is a huge waste of effort. And it wouldn't fit everyone on user side either.

at least if it is bundled with compiler, people will see it as "official GUI lib". there is no urgent need to include it in Phobos and moving repository, it's enough to be "blessed" with bundling.

On 30 January 2015 at 00:47, Adam D. Ruppe via Digitalmars-d <digitalmars-d@puremagic.com> wrote:
> On Thursday, 29 January 2015 at 08:45:23 UTC, Manu wrote:
>>
>> I'm not convinced that D needs a custom GUI library though. That's a behemoth effort.
>
>
> Indeed, but I find there's still quite a bit of value in even a small wrapper that just pops up a window and lets you do the basic drawing and input. My simpledisplay.d sets a low bar like that and I find it to be of enormous use.
>
> (I'll probably be writing about it in the this week in D series very soon.)

I didn't realise that this proposal was limited to appearing a single
window on screen.
There are progressions form that though, visibility, window flags,
positioning it, filling it with pixels... we now need to invent a
bitmap, or expose opengl for rendering to it. Where does it end?
If my requirements are really so simple that I just need to appear a
window and put pixels on it, I have no problem writing portable code
for that. It's only a few lines per platform.

On Monday, 2 February 2015 at 05:50:29 UTC, Manu wrote:
> I didn't realise that this proposal was limited to appearing a single window on screen.

Obviously not, that would be pretty useless. But popping up a window that lets you draw in it and respond to events in it, while exposing hooks for more functionality is pretty useful and not that hard; it isn't like rewriting Qt.