May 31, 2005 Java String vs Re: inner classes | ||||
---|---|---|---|---|
| ||||
Posted in reply to Walter | "Walter" <newshound@digitalmars.com> wrote in message news:d7go89$ll5$1@digitaldaemon.com... > > "Andrew Fedoniouk" <news@terrainformatica.com> wrote in message news:d7gnec$kc0$1@digitaldaemon.com... >> I trust you Walter. If it would be possible to port some Java packages >> then why not? They will be not D packages though, but who cares - >> the main thing is to get job done. > > Think of it like C++ initially living off of C code. It was many years before C++ did its own libraries and left C behind - but those early bootstrapping years were very important. Yep. But D has already C interface. And you can mix D/C<-C++ code. This just perfect and enough in most cases as all worth looking libraries already has C API. Java ones as rule too specific - rely on Java *platform* - running environment. > >> Are you going to have string constants castable to String, BTW? Or any other class? That would be nice... > > What advantage does java.lang.String have? Why does string need to be a class? Please see new posting : Java String vs wchar[] Was: Re: inner classes |
May 31, 2005 Re: inner classes | ||||
---|---|---|---|---|
| ||||
Posted in reply to Walter | In article <d7ekq0$1iq6$1@digitaldaemon.com>, Walter says... > > >"Andrew Fedoniouk" <news@terrainformatica.com> wrote in message news:d7ds35$nvf$1@digitaldaemon.com... [...] >> I would also ask: there are just three of them (in Java world): >> AWT(Sun) ,SWING(Sun), SWT(IBM public license). >> Latter one is almost done in D. First two are not free to port. > >If their licenses do not permit porting and free redistribution for any purpose, then they are a total non-starter. I don't recommend that anyone waste their time trying to convert such code. SWT, however, seems to have a license that will work for us. Wait, there is a free version of Swing, that is part of GNU Classpath (www.classpath.org). No Sun code used, completely rewritten from scratch, uses a slightly modified GPL. Please consider that 99% of Java developers use Swing. SWT is used only by Eclipse and its plugins. Ciao |
May 31, 2005 Re: Java String vs Re: inner classes | ||||
---|---|---|---|---|
| ||||
Posted in reply to Andrew Fedoniouk | "Andrew Fedoniouk" <news@terrainformatica.com> wrote in message news:d7gs4c$pd0$1@digitaldaemon.com... > > "Walter" <newshound@digitalmars.com> wrote in message news:d7go89$ll5$1@digitaldaemon.com... > > > > "Andrew Fedoniouk" <news@terrainformatica.com> wrote in message news:d7gnec$kc0$1@digitaldaemon.com... > >> I trust you Walter. If it would be possible to port some Java packages > >> then why not? They will be not D packages though, but who cares - > >> the main thing is to get job done. > > > > Think of it like C++ initially living off of C code. It was many years before C++ did its own libraries and left C behind - but those early bootstrapping years were very important. > > Yep. But D has already C interface. But it's not good enough these days, because people need a GUI and the interesting GUIs are not written in C. |
May 31, 2005 Re: inner classes | ||||
---|---|---|---|---|
| ||||
Posted in reply to Roberto Mariottini | "Roberto Mariottini" <Roberto_member@pathlink.com> wrote in message news:d7h1bt$u4g$1@digitaldaemon.com... > Wait, there is a free version of Swing, that is part of GNU Classpath (www.classpath.org). No Sun code used, completely rewritten from scratch, uses a > slightly modified GPL. > > Please consider that 99% of Java developers use Swing. SWT is used only by Eclipse and its plugins. I don't know which is better, SWT or Swing. But D needs the best GUI we can get, not necessarilly the most popular one <g>. |
May 31, 2005 Re: Java String vs Re: inner classes | ||||
---|---|---|---|---|
| ||||
Posted in reply to Walter | "Walter" <newshound@digitalmars.com> wrote in message news:d7h48j$12fi$1@digitaldaemon.com... > > "Andrew Fedoniouk" <news@terrainformatica.com> wrote in message news:d7gs4c$pd0$1@digitaldaemon.com... >> >> "Walter" <newshound@digitalmars.com> wrote in message news:d7go89$ll5$1@digitaldaemon.com... >> > >> > "Andrew Fedoniouk" <news@terrainformatica.com> wrote in message news:d7gnec$kc0$1@digitaldaemon.com... >> >> I trust you Walter. If it would be possible to port some Java packages >> >> then why not? They will be not D packages though, but who cares - >> >> the main thing is to get job done. >> > >> > Think of it like C++ initially living off of C code. It was many years before C++ did its own libraries and left C behind - but those early bootstrapping years were very important. >> >> Yep. But D has already C interface. > > But it's not good enough these days, because people need a GUI and the interesting GUIs are not written in C. > > Probably. "Interesting" here means interesting for porting into D or really interesting? Andrew. |
May 31, 2005 Re: inner classes | ||||
---|---|---|---|---|
| ||||
Posted in reply to Walter | "Walter" <newshound@digitalmars.com> wrote in message news:d7h48k$12fi$2@digitaldaemon.com... > > "Roberto Mariottini" <Roberto_member@pathlink.com> wrote in message news:d7h1bt$u4g$1@digitaldaemon.com... >> Wait, there is a free version of Swing, that is part of GNU Classpath (www.classpath.org). No Sun code used, completely rewritten from scratch, > uses a >> slightly modified GPL. >> >> Please consider that 99% of Java developers use Swing. SWT is used only >> by >> Eclipse and its plugins. > > I don't know which is better, SWT or Swing. But D needs the best GUI we > can > get, not necessarilly the most popular one <g>. > > Walter, for D sake, do not look into Java for "the best GUI".... There are too many of them out there and for many different purposes. Java ones famous only by their weight :( Start VS and start Eclipse and compare time. And this not about bytecode - JavaVM these days is loosing 30% from C++. It is about architecture and memory management. |
May 31, 2005 Re: inner classes | ||||
---|---|---|---|---|
| ||||
Posted in reply to Walter | Walter wrote: > "Roberto Mariottini" <Roberto_member@pathlink.com> wrote in message > news:d7h1bt$u4g$1@digitaldaemon.com... > >>Wait, there is a free version of Swing, that is part of GNU Classpath >>(www.classpath.org). No Sun code used, completely rewritten from scratch, > > uses a > >>slightly modified GPL. >> >>Please consider that 99% of Java developers use Swing. SWT is used only by >>Eclipse and its plugins. > > > I don't know which is better, SWT or Swing. But D needs the best GUI we can > get, not necessarilly the most popular one <g>. > > Swing vs SWT... Now where is that interesting piece of propoganda Kris had us reading at dsource? ;) Oh... here it is: http://www.mail-archive.com/jug-discussion@tucson-jug.org/msg00355.html Really, it was a good read. I don't know how true it is, but it definitely gives credence to the fact that things aren't always what they appear. -JJR |
May 31, 2005 Re: inner classes | ||||
---|---|---|---|---|
| ||||
Posted in reply to Andrew Fedoniouk | Andrew Fedoniouk wrote: > > Walter, for D sake, do not look into Java for "the best GUI".... > There are too many of them out there and for many different purposes. > Java ones famous only by their weight :( According to whom? How can you "discuss" such things rationally with such a bigoted point of view? Should we suppose Harmonia would be the best GUI? Great! We'll have lots of wonderful choices! As I see it, Walter is simply opening more doors for D; for rather limited cost. You, on the other hand, seem bent on maintaining the status-quo :-) > Start VS and start Eclipse and compare time. > And this not about bytecode - JavaVM these days > is loosing 30% from C++. It is about architecture and > memory management. Now that is one misleading set of statements. You're apparently compounding wibbly assertion upon dodgy premise <g> All that aside; would you like to find out whether the same might be true of D, or would you rather just sit and speculate idly/wildly? C'mon Andrew. Why don't you help out instead? |
May 31, 2005 Re: inner classes | ||||
---|---|---|---|---|
| ||||
Posted in reply to Walter | Walter wrote: <snip> > I've looked at doing a hand translation of C++ gui libraries. No dice, the > sheer volume of code makes it completely impractical. You did tell us in the overview that D isn't for legacy apps. I suppose it isn't really for legacy libs either. Leave GUI support in D to those of us who are writing native D GUI libs.... <snip> > So, the result is that Kris has convinced me to support inner classes in D. > This is a heads up that such change is coming. It shouldn't affect any > existing code, unless that code uses nested classes. To prepare for the > future, declare these nested classes as "static class ...", and they'll > continue to work in the future as they do currently. I don't have a schedule > for this change yet, as it is not a simple "drop in" into the compiler. A > fair amount of engineering needs to be done. So people can write their GUIs in a D port of Java AWT? > No analogous "inner struct" support is planned. Better watch the confusion - I've seen some use "inner struct" to mean "anonymous struct". Stewart. -- My e-mail is valid but not my primary mailbox. Please keep replies on the 'group where everyone may benefit. |
May 31, 2005 Re: Java String vs Re: inner classes | ||||
---|---|---|---|---|
| ||||
Posted in reply to Andrew Fedoniouk | "Andrew Fedoniouk" <news@terrainformatica.com> wrote in message news:d7h4ns$12um$1@digitaldaemon.com... > > "Walter" <newshound@digitalmars.com> wrote in message > > But it's not good enough these days, because people need a GUI and the interesting GUIs are not written in C. > > Probably. > > "Interesting" here means interesting for porting into D > or really interesting? "Interesting" as in D programmers would want to use it to develop modern, useful GUI apps. |
Copyright © 1999-2021 by the D Language Foundation