View mode: basic / threaded / horizontal-split · Log in · Help
September 28, 2007
GUI strategy?
Again and again it is said in this newsgroup: "D needs a GUI"
But there are existing alternatives:
DFL/GTKD/MinWin/DWT/wxD/....
(and more http://www.prowiki.org/wiki4d/wiki.cgi?GuiLibraries)
So I think some ppl are happy with one of those existing solutions.

So what is missing for those, who say D needs a GUI?

In the world outside of D, there are those big ones:
- .NET/Mono
- Eclipse RCP, Netbeans
- QT
- ...?

They all are not only a GUI, say a collection of basic controls. They
are complete frameworks. They offer complete Dialogs, separation of data
and presentation (MFC/data binding), persistance, update mechnisms,
docking systems, extension mechanisms, tools, IDE support, commercial
support, ...

Is it something like this, ppl mean if they say 'D needs a GUI'?
I can only speak for myself, and yes, that is what I think. I wish i
could use a framework, which has an answer for many of the common tasks
while building a GUI application.

What do you think, does this problem "D needs a GUI" really exist?
Seriously, how can this be solved in the next 1..2 years?
... and who will do it?
September 28, 2007
Re: GUI strategy?
People complain that D needs a GUI because people are stupid and 
incompetent, and don't understand the concept of third-party libraries.

 - Gregor Richards
September 28, 2007
Re: GUI strategy?
Gregor Richards wrote:
> People complain that D needs a GUI because people are stupid and 
> incompetent, and don't understand the concept of third-party libraries.

Harsh.. I prefer to think they are simply un-enlightened as to the 
presence of dsource.  I think having a standard D gui library alongside 
the standard D library would be beneficial, even if it just does the 
basics.  As long as it is enough to get people coding in D.

Regan
September 28, 2007
Re: GUI strategy?
Frank Benoit schrieb:

> Is it something like this, ppl mean if they say 'D needs a GUI'?
> I can only speak for myself, and yes, that is what I think. I wish i
> could use a framework, which has an answer for many of the common tasks
> while building a GUI application.

Yes, that is what I think too.
written from the scratch, based upon Tango.

Bjoern
September 28, 2007
Re: GUI strategy?
Regan Heath schrieb:
> Gregor Richards wrote:
>> People complain that D needs a GUI because people are stupid and 
>> incompetent, and don't understand the concept of third-party libraries.
> 
> Harsh.. I prefer to think they are simply un-enlightened as to the 
> presence of dsource.  I think having a standard D gui library alongside 
> the standard D library would be beneficial, even if it just does the 
> basics.  As long as it is enough to get people coding in D.

Enough to do what ? Producing a GUI with a yesterday look and feel ?
No thanks.
Bjoern


> 
> Regan
September 28, 2007
Re: GUI strategy?
Regan Heath wrote:
> Gregor Richards wrote:
>> People complain that D needs a GUI because people are stupid and 
>> incompetent, and don't understand the concept of third-party libraries.
> 
> Harsh.. I prefer to think they are simply un-enlightened as to the 
> presence of dsource.  I think having a standard D gui library alongside 
> the standard D library would be beneficial, even if it just does the 
> basics.  As long as it is enough to get people coding in D.
> 
> Regan

Yes, because having a standard GUI library has proven oh-so-beneficial 
in the past. Lesse ...

Java:
 1) AWT is the standard. Whoops, that sucks, so let's write
 2) Swing, the new standard. Whoops, that sucks, so lots of things use
 3) SWT, which is not standard in that it is not part of the standard 
library.

Python:
 1) Tkinter. Whoops, that sucks, so people wrote
 <place huge list of good libraries here>

D:
 1) DWT. Who cares about platform compatibility or maintenance?

Lesson learned? The standard always sucks because the standard can never 
change, and people will continue to use the standard even when there are 
superior alternatives. The desire to add GUIs to a standard library is 
part of the common ridiculously-poor design of monolithic standard 
libraries, and thankfully it doesn't have much steam for D.

 - Gregor Richards
September 28, 2007
Re: GUI strategy?
"Gregor Richards" <Richards@codu.org> wrote in message 
news:fdjc7i$14ka$1@digitalmars.com...
> Regan Heath wrote:
>> Gregor Richards wrote:
>>> People complain that D needs a GUI because people are stupid and 
>>> incompetent, and don't understand the concept of third-party libraries.
>>
>> Harsh.. I prefer to think they are simply un-enlightened as to the 
>> presence of dsource.  I think having a standard D gui library alongside 
>> the standard D library would be beneficial, even if it just does the 
>> basics.  As long as it is enough to get people coding in D.
>>
>> Regan
>
> Yes, because having a standard GUI library has proven oh-so-beneficial in 
> the past. Lesse ...
>
> Java:
>  1) AWT is the standard. Whoops, that sucks, so let's write
>  2) Swing, the new standard. Whoops, that sucks, so lots of things use
>  3) SWT, which is not standard in that it is not part of the standard 
> library.
>
> Python:
>  1) Tkinter. Whoops, that sucks, so people wrote
>  <place huge list of good libraries here>
>
> D:
>  1) DWT. Who cares about platform compatibility or maintenance?
>
> Lesson learned? The standard always sucks because the standard can never 
> change, and people will continue to use the standard even when there are 
> superior alternatives. The desire to add GUIs to a standard library is 
> part of the common ridiculously-poor design of monolithic standard 
> libraries, and thankfully it doesn't have much steam for D.
>
>  - Gregor Richards

You forgot to mention:
C#:
.NET forms.  Wow, it's freaking awesome, lets use it ;)

Not that it matters much.  I think your overall point is correct.  The 
presence of a good GUI library does not necessarily mean it has to be part 
of the standard.  It just should exist and be as good as current GUI 
libraries in other languages.

Disclaimer: I haven't used any D GUI library yet, so I am pretty much 
talking out of my ass.

-Steve
September 28, 2007
Re: GUI strategy?
BLS schrieb:
> Yes, that is what I think too.
> written from the scratch, based upon Tango.
> 
> Bjoern

But what about "how?", "who?", "when?" ?
September 28, 2007
Re: GUI strategy?
On Fri, 28 Sep 2007 17:51:29 +0100, Regan Heath <regan@netmail.co.nz>
wrote:

>Gregor Richards wrote:
>> People complain that D needs a GUI because people are stupid and 
>> incompetent, and don't understand the concept of third-party libraries.
>
>Harsh.. I prefer to think they are simply un-enlightened as to the 
>presence of dsource.  I think having a standard D gui library alongside 
>the standard D library would be beneficial, even if it just does the 
>basics.  As long as it is enough to get people coding in D.
>
>Regan

Just like you I prefer to think that I'm not (hopelessly) stupid or
incompetent but that I want a kind of useable 'official' gui library
written in D, not a wrapper around C wrapper around C++ wrapper around
native API. At least a basic set of widgets. I'm trying to use DFL but
it seems to be developed and maintained by one person, is Windows-only
and very alpha. And the dead DWT, harmonia and others are not a
choice.

PS. Gregor, you are one of the smartest people I've ever met, no
doubt.
September 28, 2007
Re: GUI strategy?
Gregor Richards wrote:
> Regan Heath wrote:
>> Gregor Richards wrote:
>>> People complain that D needs a GUI because people are stupid and 
>>> incompetent, and don't understand the concept of third-party libraries.
>>
>> Harsh.. I prefer to think they are simply un-enlightened as to the 
>> presence of dsource.  I think having a standard D gui library 
>> alongside the standard D library would be beneficial, even if it just 
>> does the basics.  As long as it is enough to get people coding in D.
>>
>> Regan
> 
> Yes, because having a standard GUI library has proven oh-so-beneficial 
> in the past. Lesse ...
> 
> Java:
>  1) AWT is the standard. Whoops, that sucks, so let's write
>  2) Swing, the new standard. Whoops, that sucks, so lots of things use
>  3) SWT, which is not standard in that it is not part of the standard 
> library.
> 
> Python:
>  1) Tkinter. Whoops, that sucks, so people wrote
>  <place huge list of good libraries here>
> 
> D:
>  1) DWT. Who cares about platform compatibility or maintenance?
> 
> Lesson learned? The standard always sucks because the standard can never 
> change, and people will continue to use the standard even when there are 
> superior alternatives. The desire to add GUIs to a standard library is 
> part of the common ridiculously-poor design of monolithic standard 
> libraries, and thankfully it doesn't have much steam for D.
> 
>  - Gregor Richards

IMHO, you are right about NOT having a standard GUI library as part of 
D. however, regarding the current options we have - it not a trivial 
task to install any of them, in the sense that dsss net install should 
be all i need to start using any of them.

besides, current GUI libs carry with them their own problems.

in my ideal world the solution is:
having the infrastructure for such a lib be part of the standard 
library: containers, threads, signals and slots, i18n, l13n, etc...
now NEW GUI libs would be modular and could be built based on those 
standard libs.

I really don't like most of the C/C++ based toolkits because of the 
kitchen sink approach: qt has it's own threads, containers, etc.
so does gtk+, (i guess it's due to the lack of those features in the 
standard lib when the kits were made)

D native libs would benefit from many D features, and i would like to 
have a choice: native widgets vs. non-native, or a choice between using 
real D code vs. some declarative STANDARDIZED form (based on XML, for 
example)

another thing is a standardized framework for deployment. i would prefer 
something like what adobe does with their AIR offering. only not 
proprietary.
« First   ‹ Prev
1 2 3 4
Top | Discussion index | About this forum | D home