On 25/01/16 6:47 PM, Puming wrote:
> On Monday, 25 January 2016 at 03:49:56 UTC, Rikki Cattermole wrote:
>> On 25/01/16 4:21 PM, Puming wrote:
>>> On Monday, 25 January 2016 at 02:37:40 UTC, Andrei Alexandrescu wrote:
>>>> Hot off the press! http://wiki.dlang.org/Vision/2016H1 -- Andrei
>>>
>>> For PRs, I suggest the goal to be number of PRs MERGED instead of
>>> created. That may provide the core team a subconsious incentive to look
>>> at long pending PRs and hit a good cycle.
>>>
>>> For tooling, I suggest a look at GUI/IDEs, now that dlangui/dlangide
>>> seems a good candidate(native D, crossplatform). A good official
>>> supported GUI library will attract many people.
>>
>> That won't be happening anytime soon.
>> Until we have image and windowing in Phobos (I'm working on both)
>> there is no way a GUI toolkit is going in. And from what I know there
>> will be a LOT of work to update it.
>
> Well I'm not saying that a GUI toolkit should go into Phobos.
> I'd rather it stand alone, while taking some official support, say, link
> in D frontpage(like visualD).

I want us to hold off on that as well.
I want people to really have a go with making GUI toolkits in D without the worry about how to do the cross platformy technical things.

We just don't know what could be done yet and I'm looking forward to finding out.

On Monday, 25 January 2016 at 02:37:40 UTC, Andrei Alexandrescu wrote:
> Hot off the press! http://wiki.dlang.org/Vision/2016H1 -- Andrei

My biggest issue with these documents is that they have good ideas but rarely have plans to achieve them. As a consequence, most of these documents say how half or more of the previous goals were not achieved.

I believe the best way to fix this is to simply have more focus. Have one large goal that can be broken down into smaller subsets, e.g. "2016 will be the year of a GC free Phobos". Something that has a very clear way of quantifying its success and a clear path to that goal.

Not that that the other things are not important, but if you constantly find yourself failing to meet your goals, the only rational option is to become more realistic in your plans.

On Monday, 25 January 2016 at 05:50:34 UTC, Rikki Cattermole wrote:
>
> I want us to hold off on that as well.

I agree that we need a more solid base.

> I want people to really have a go with making GUI toolkits in D without the worry about how to do the cross platformy technical things.

Is dlangui a good start on this?

>
> We just don't know what could be done yet and I'm looking forward to finding out.

I think improving dlangide will give us many opportunities for what a good D native GUI library needs.

On Monday, 25 January 2016 at 02:37:40 UTC, Andrei Alexandrescu wrote:
> Hot off the press! http://wiki.dlang.org/Vision/2016H1 -- Andrei

Would be great if shared finally got the love it needs, and you're one of the few people qualified to do it(in my humble opinion), Andrei.
It was part of the 2015H1 vision, IIRC.

On Monday, 25 January 2016 at 03:21:51 UTC, Puming wrote:
> On Monday, 25 January 2016 at 02:37:40 UTC, Andrei Alexandrescu wrote:
>> Hot off the press! http://wiki.dlang.org/Vision/2016H1 -- Andrei

[snip]

> For tooling, I suggest a look at GUI/IDEs, now that dlangui/dlangide seems a good candidate(native D, crossplatform). A good official supported GUI library will attract many people.

I truly doubt that. It would be truly amazing if that were to occur but history has proven otherwise. The sentiment was expressed so many times that Walter was finally moved to sanction DWT as the official GUI for D in 2006. Even a newsgroup was made for it. It's ten years later. DWT anyone?

Aurora was a recent attempt that was shelved for the sole author's personal reasons. Result?

Sadly, dlangui/dlangide is no different. It has one developer. If that individual gets discouraged, like so many others have so far, what becomes of it?

Until members of the community starts combining efforts and working together to improve the situation, it will not improve. You have Adam working on working on simpledisplay, Mike working on Derelict, Felix working on three-d, Vladimir working on ae-graphics, Martin on freeimage, Vadim on dlangui/dlangide and who knows what else is out there in the wood works. All of this is admirable and appreciated but imagine what would be possible if these minds teamed up, mapped out a graphic solution for the language and united efforts in implementing it!

I'm convinced that without such a deliberate effort, this situation will not change for years to come. Even if a particular library is dubbed "The One." Like I've said earlier, that was already done ten years ago.

On 25/01/16 7:39 PM, Andrew Edwards wrote:
> On Monday, 25 January 2016 at 03:21:51 UTC, Puming wrote:
>> On Monday, 25 January 2016 at 02:37:40 UTC, Andrei Alexandrescu wrote:
>>> Hot off the press! http://wiki.dlang.org/Vision/2016H1 -- Andrei
>
> [snip]
>
>> For tooling, I suggest a look at GUI/IDEs, now that dlangui/dlangide
>> seems a good candidate(native D, crossplatform). A good official
>> supported GUI library will attract many people.
>
> I truly doubt that. It would be truly amazing if that were to occur but
> history has proven otherwise. The sentiment was expressed so many times
> that Walter was finally moved to sanction DWT as the official GUI for D
> in 2006. Even a newsgroup was made for it. It's ten years later. DWT
> anyone?
>
> Aurora was a recent attempt that was shelved for the sole author's
> personal reasons. Result?
>
> Sadly, dlangui/dlangide is no different. It has one developer. If that
> individual gets discouraged, like so many others have so far, what
> becomes of it?
>
> Until members of the community starts combining efforts and working
> together to improve the situation, it will not improve. You have Adam
> working on working on simpledisplay, Mike working on Derelict, Felix
> working on three-d, Vladimir working on ae-graphics, Martin on
> freeimage, Vadim on dlangui/dlangide and who knows what else is out
> there in the wood works. All of this is admirable and appreciated but
> imagine what would be possible if these minds teamed up, mapped out a
> graphic solution for the language and united efforts in implementing it!
>
> I'm convinced that without such a deliberate effort, this situation will
> not change for years to come. Even if a particular library is dubbed
> "The One." Like I've said earlier, that was already done ten years ago.

I agree.
This is why everything I'm doing right now for windowing and image library builds upon what has come before but in a Phobos quality way.

Unless it is in Phobos, its not good enough as a base IMO.

On 25/01/16 7:18 PM, Puming wrote:
> On Monday, 25 January 2016 at 05:50:34 UTC, Rikki Cattermole wrote:
>>
>> I want us to hold off on that as well.
>
> I agree that we need a more solid base.
>
>> I want people to really have a go with making GUI toolkits in D
>> without the worry about how to do the cross platformy technical things.
>
> Is dlangui a good start on this?

No, too much code for what the base needs.
For windowing you want it just above what the OS does in a cross platform abstracted way.

So no controls support or any other gruff that a GUI toolkit provides.

>>
>> We just don't know what could be done yet and I'm looking forward to
>> finding out.
>
> I think improving dlangide will give us many opportunities for what a
> good D native GUI library needs.

No, it already has its core code. By in large what you want to innovate is the core code, not what a specific control does.

I'm not saying dlangui is the wrong way to go. We just don't know which way is right just yet and that is ok.

On Mon, 2016-01-25 at 16:49 +1300, Rikki Cattermole via Digitalmars-d- announce wrote:
> 
[…]
> That won't be happening anytime soon.
> Until we have image and windowing in Phobos (I'm working on both)
> there
> is no way a GUI toolkit is going in. And from what I know there will
> be
> a LOT of work to update it.

How about we have a D library infrastructure such that Phobos gets smaller and smaller providing only absolutely necessary core things over druntime.

If the Python, Rust, Go, etc. stories tell us anything, it is that the days of "batteries included" distributions is long, long dead. DVCS changes the game.

Phobos the library needs to go to be replaced by a library search and use system. Oh we already have one, Dub.

The strategy should be "get rid of anything in Phobos that can be put
out as a separate library".

-- 
Russel. ============================================================================= Dr Russel Winder      t: +44 20 7585 2200   voip: sip:russel.winder@ekiga.net 41 Buckmaster Road    m: +44 7770 465 077   xmpp: russel@winder.org.uk London SW11 1EN, UK   w: www.russel.org.uk  skype: russel_winder

On Monday, 25 January 2016 at 07:03:35 UTC, Russel Winder wrote:
> The strategy should be "get rid of anything in Phobos that can be put
> out as a separate library".

This makes no sense as a standard: since neither DMD nor druntime is allowed to depend upon Phobos, everything in Phobos *could* be put into a separate library.

On 25/01/16 8:16 PM, tsbockman wrote:
> On Monday, 25 January 2016 at 07:03:35 UTC, Russel Winder wrote:
>> The strategy should be "get rid of anything in Phobos that can be put
>> out as a separate library".
>
> This makes no sense as a standard: since neither DMD nor druntime is
> allowed to depend upon Phobos, everything in Phobos *could* be put into
> a separate library.

I had a long post replying to Russel and to put it bluntly, its just wrong.
We are most definitely losing people simply because they expect certain code in the standard library. Like windowing and image.
Things like sockets are lower on their priority list.

In their mind we are not even a 'programming language'.

Phobos does need to be bigger, but not fully inclusive.
If most people won't use something, don't add it.

Sure there is arguments against this, but there is a certain amount we must standardize and agree upon as a community. Phobos most certainly is the place to do this. Otherwise we will be going round in circles for a much longer period then we should and not growing much.