>> On Tuesday, 22 May 2012 at 10:59:04 UTC, Jacob Carlborg wrote:
> * do you think such project is worth the effort?
>
> Yes
>
> * do you feel that D ecosystem lacks tool support?
>
> Yes
>
> * Does this prevent many from using D?
>
> Probably, not me though
>
> * which tools are needed most? Which may be needed, but are not a high priority for you?
>
> This is quite hard, that is, how to prioritize. This is my list, in no particular order:
>
> * IDE
> * Compiler (usable as a library)
> * Build tool
> * Testing framework
> * GUI library
> * Tool for automatically create bindings for C/C++/Objective-C
> * ABI compatible with Objective-C, i.e. extern(Objective-C)
> * Package manager
> * Support for iOS

I agree in almost everything what Jacob said.
I would say, that binding generator improvement is even higher than
testing framework though.

Tools are good, but making compiler and library more reliable is crucial thing.

Still, some kind of library which would share (AST or i don't know how
to name that) implementation with compilers front-end is just after
that.
I'm not really sure if that's what you mean (since you mentioned more
high-level features), but without separating some code out from
compiler, different IDEs will rewrite the same code again and again.
And i guess we all agree that single IDE wont satisfy needs of
everyone (of course  there is more uses of library like that than only
IDEs)

On May 22, 2012 12:13 PM, "s" <some@one.com> wrote:
>
> +1 for a GUI lib, which is in sync with DMD releases.
>

Is there any way to bind Qt without the dreaded moc and friends?  Because that would give you a cross platform solution without too much work.

On Tuesday, 22 May 2012 at 16:23:46 UTC, Kevin Cox wrote:
> On May 22, 2012 12:13 PM, "s" <some@one.com> wrote:
>>
>> +1 for a GUI lib, which is in sync with DMD releases.
>>
>
> Is there any way to bind Qt without the dreaded moc and friends?  Because
> that would give you a cross platform solution without too much work.

Well, for cross-platform Gtk+ should be enough, and it has C bindings.

On Tuesday, 22 May 2012 at 16:23:46 UTC, Kevin Cox wrote:
> On May 22, 2012 12:13 PM, "s" <some@one.com> wrote:
>>
>> +1 for a GUI lib, which is in sync with DMD releases.
>>
>
> Is there any way to bind Qt without the dreaded moc and friends?  Because
> that would give you a cross platform solution without too much work.

Surely much of the functionality moc provides can be replaced by proper D features?

On May 22, 2012, at 7:43 AM, "H. S. Teoh" <hsteoh@quickfur.ath.cx> wrote:

> On Tue, May 22, 2012 at 12:18:47PM +0200, Dejan Lekic wrote:
>> On Tuesday, 22 May 2012 at 10:03:36 UTC, Roman D. Boiko wrote:
>>> http://d-coding.com/2012/05/22/is-the-d-community-lacking-development-tools.html
>> 
>> My opinion - no.
> [...]
> 
> +1. For me, vim + dmd/gdc is Good Enough(tm). Other tools are nice to
> have, but not a must.

It depends on the platform. GDB works fine on Linux, but is pretty much broken on OSX. Does Visual Studio work on Windows? Because that standalone debugger bundled with DMD is garbage.

On Tuesday, 22 May 2012 at 16:23:46 UTC, Kevin Cox wrote:
> On May 22, 2012 12:13 PM, "s" <some@one.com> wrote:
>> +1 for a GUI lib, which is in sync with DMD releases.
> Is there any way to bind Qt without the dreaded moc and friends?  Because
> that would give you a cross platform solution without too much work.

QtD? It includes a CTFE/template-based substitute for moc.

David

On Tuesday, 22 May 2012 at 10:18:48 UTC, Dejan Lekic wrote:
> On Tuesday, 22 May 2012 at 10:03:36 UTC, Roman D. Boiko wrote:
>> http://d-coding.com/2012/05/22/is-the-d-community-lacking-development-tools.html
>
> My opinion - no.
> Sure, all of them can be better, provide more fancy features, etc...

+1, Sublime Text, dmd, gtkd.

On 2012-05-22 18:21, deadalnix wrote:

> Refactoring tools ? Static code analysis ? Formaters ?
>
> I'd say, just compare to what exists in Java or C# and you'll know that
> yes, many things are missing.

I completely agree. I forgot about these.

-- 
/Jacob Carlborg

On 2012-05-22 18:42, Roman D. Boiko wrote:
> On Tuesday, 22 May 2012 at 16:23:46 UTC, Kevin Cox wrote:
>> On May 22, 2012 12:13 PM, "s" <some@one.com> wrote:
>>>
>>> +1 for a GUI lib, which is in sync with DMD releases.
>>>
>>
>> Is there any way to bind Qt without the dreaded moc and friends? Because
>> that would give you a cross platform solution without too much work.
>
> Well, for cross-platform Gtk+ should be enough, and it has C bindings.

GTK+ suck at corss-platform, especially on Mac OS X.

-- 
/Jacob Carlborg

On 2012-05-22 18:22, shd wrote:

> I agree in almost everything what Jacob said.
> I would say, that binding generator improvement is even higher than
> testing framework though.

Absolutely, I just wrote the list in no particular order. But at the same time you need to be able to test the binding generator :)

> Tools are good, but making compiler and library more reliable is crucial thing.

Yeah, it always comes back to the compiler. And preferably it should be written in D as a library.

> Still, some kind of library which would share (AST or i don't know how
> to name that) implementation with compilers front-end is just after
> that.
> I'm not really sure if that's what you mean (since you mentioned more
> high-level features), but without separating some code out from
> compiler, different IDEs will rewrite the same code again and again.
> And i guess we all agree that single IDE wont satisfy needs of
> everyone (of course  there is more uses of library like that than only
> IDEs)

That was that I meant. One compiler library every tool can take advantage of. The actual compiler should use the library as well, of course.

-- 
/Jacob Carlborg