I know a lot of people wish they had new bindings for Qt, so I was going to give it a go soon. Is anyone currently working on such a thing? I'd rather help someone than compete with them.

On Saturday, 3 October 2015 at 01:58:01 UTC, Jeremy DeHaan wrote:
> I know a lot of people wish they had new bindings for Qt, so I was going to give it a go soon. Is anyone currently working on such a thing? I'd rather help someone than compete with them.

btw i see youve made some changes to DSFML. DSFML master is broke with symbol and linking problems. I dont know how to fix.

On Saturday, 3 October 2015 at 01:58:01 UTC, Jeremy DeHaan wrote:
> I know a lot of people wish they had new bindings for Qt, so I was going to give it a go soon. Is anyone currently working on such a thing? I'd rather help someone than compete with them.

I tried to use https://github.com/filcuc/DOtherSide (QML) and it's work pretty fine (even on Windows)

On Saturday, 3 October 2015 at 06:33:32 UTC, Israel wrote:
> On Saturday, 3 October 2015 at 01:58:01 UTC, Jeremy DeHaan wrote:
>> I know a lot of people wish they had new bindings for Qt, so I was going to give it a go soon. Is anyone currently working on such a thing? I'd rather help someone than compete with them.
>
> btw i see youve made some changes to DSFML. DSFML master is broke with symbol and linking problems. I dont know how to fix.

A little off topic to my question, don't you think? :P

Yes I did make a bunch of changes to DSFML, and unfortunately I got ahead of myself when I pushed the code back into master. I had some issues packaging stuff, and I couldn't finish so I didn't make an announcement like I had planned.

Basically there is a new back end that fixed a bunch of stuff, so that is your issue. You'll need to build it yourself, but it is super easy. See build tutorial here: http://dsfml.com/docs/buildingfromsource.html

On 3 October 2015 at 11:58, Jeremy DeHaan via Digitalmars-d <digitalmars-d@puremagic.com> wrote:
> I know a lot of people wish they had new bindings for Qt, so I was going to give it a go soon. Is anyone currently working on such a thing? I'd rather help someone than compete with them.

On 3 October 2015 at 11:58, Jeremy DeHaan via Digitalmars-d <digitalmars-d@puremagic.com> wrote:
> I know a lot of people wish they had new bindings for Qt, so I was going to> give it a go soon. Is anyone currently working on such a thing? I'd rather
> help someone than compete with them.

I've spent about 2 weeks trying to get the latest Qt bound up... it's
a LOT of work, but I have done a fair bit of core stuff.
I can commit it somewhere if you wanna hack at it too...

On Saturday, 3 October 2015 at 01:58:01 UTC, Jeremy DeHaan wrote:
> I know a lot of people wish they had new bindings for Qt, so I was going to give it a go soon. Is anyone currently working on such a thing? I'd rather help someone than compete with them.

I got quite far for Qt4 with https://github.com/alynch4047/smidgen and https://github.com/alynch4047/sqt . It's based on the sip bindings used for PyQt and for various reasons doesn't use externC++ etc (though that's easily changed) (I stuck to extern C). It handles virtual functions, namespaces etc.

I based it on PyQt4/sip because it means that a lot of work has already been done, and it's a Qt wrapping technology that I've had a lot of experience with and know that it works very well.

The code is well tested and I think isn't too far from covering most of Qt4. Only tested on Linux 64bit.

I stopped development due to lack of time and a concern that Qt4 was on its way out and Android / iOS / Java / Web were the realistic future (somewhat unfortunately).

On Saturday, 3 October 2015 at 08:25:25 UTC, Manu wrote:
> On 3 October 2015 at 11:58, Jeremy DeHaan via Digitalmars-d <digitalmars-d@puremagic.com> wrote:
>> I know a lot of people wish they had new bindings for Qt, so I was going to> give it a go soon. Is anyone currently working on such a thing? I'd rather
>> help someone than compete with them.
>
> I've spent about 2 weeks trying to get the latest Qt bound up... it's
> a LOT of work, but I have done a fair bit of core stuff.
> I can commit it somewhere if you wanna hack at it too...

Yeah,that'd be great. I'm only interested in working on the latest Qt. You said two weeks and that's just been the core stuff. Are you doing the binding by hand?

On 4 October 2015 at 02:43, Jeremy DeHaan via Digitalmars-d <digitalmars-d@puremagic.com> wrote:
> On Saturday, 3 October 2015 at 08:25:25 UTC, Manu wrote:
>>
>> On 3 October 2015 at 11:58, Jeremy DeHaan via Digitalmars-d <digitalmars-d@puremagic.com> wrote:
>>>
>>> I know a lot of people wish they had new bindings for Qt, so I was going
>>> to> give it a go soon. Is anyone currently working on such a thing? I'd
>>> rather
>>> help someone than compete with them.
>>
>>
>> I've spent about 2 weeks trying to get the latest Qt bound up... it's
>> a LOT of work, but I have done a fair bit of core stuff.
>> I can commit it somewhere if you wanna hack at it too...
>
>
> Yeah,that'd be great. I'm only interested in working on the latest Qt. You said two weeks and that's just been the core stuff. Are you doing the binding by hand?

When I say 2 weeks, I don't mean like, full-time day-job type thing, just tinkering some nights.

But yeah, by hand (ie, lots of regex-ing). It's hard to automate, but
an automated solution would surely be preferable, otherwise this will
be a maintenance nightmare.
The core stuff is the hardest bit, and requires the most manual
intervention. Sooooo many macros, and various platform abstractions.
The majority of feature headers may be automatable.

The main thing I wanted to do with this binding was to eliminate moc. You shouldn't need to run moc; D can do that work right on the spot.

On 4 October 2015 at 10:09, Manu <turkeyman@gmail.com> wrote:
> On 4 October 2015 at 02:43, Jeremy DeHaan via Digitalmars-d <digitalmars-d@puremagic.com> wrote:
>> On Saturday, 3 October 2015 at 08:25:25 UTC, Manu wrote:
>>>
>>> On 3 October 2015 at 11:58, Jeremy DeHaan via Digitalmars-d <digitalmars-d@puremagic.com> wrote:
>>>>
>>>> I know a lot of people wish they had new bindings for Qt, so I was going
>>>> to> give it a go soon. Is anyone currently working on such a thing? I'd
>>>> rather
>>>> help someone than compete with them.
>>>
>>>
>>> I've spent about 2 weeks trying to get the latest Qt bound up... it's
>>> a LOT of work, but I have done a fair bit of core stuff.
>>> I can commit it somewhere if you wanna hack at it too...
>>
>>
>> Yeah,that'd be great. I'm only interested in working on the latest Qt. You said two weeks and that's just been the core stuff. Are you doing the binding by hand?
>
> When I say 2 weeks, I don't mean like, full-time day-job type thing, just tinkering some nights.
>
> But yeah, by hand (ie, lots of regex-ing). It's hard to automate, but
> an automated solution would surely be preferable, otherwise this will
> be a maintenance nightmare.
> The core stuff is the hardest bit, and requires the most manual
> intervention. Sooooo many macros, and various platform abstractions.
> The majority of feature headers may be automatable.
>
> The main thing I wanted to do with this binding was to eliminate moc. You shouldn't need to run moc; D can do that work right on the spot.

Here: https://github.com/TurkeyMan/qt-d

Note, this doesn't even come close to compiling... I basically just renamed all the .h files, got some of the Qt sample apps, translated those main.cpp files to D, and started trying to build. Then just working through compile errors, with each class of error being formed to the best regex I could muster and applying it across the board. Going for the simplest and most regex-able errors first (you'll find very little in the way of relevance regarding what is and isn't done), so that I could translate as much of the code as close to D as I can before having to deal with the harder ones.