Hello,

I am new to D. I was looking for something like this for a long time. IMHO D provides the best of C and C++, improving it. So if D could also provide the best of Java it would be perfect.

The best of Java is the Java API. In Java you open a window and draw a picture from an input stream of pixels with 10 lines of code, because of the Java API Class library:

java.awt.Frame
java.awt.Image
java.io.InputStream
etc.

D could provide it's own API Class library providing classes for windowing, io, etc. at some high abstraction level in Java fashion, something like

d.awt.*
d.xml.*
d.crypto.*
...

as a part of the language, along with the low level std.* Phobos runtime library.

Platform versioning makes it easy (well...) to have such a class library platform independent, and if a class is not ported at least you let the compiler know that it is not supported on that platform.

I know that this is a HUGE feature request that can't be done for next month.

But if something like this would be known to be under construction it could be another good argument for people switching to D.

Most probably  this is not a new topic at all, but I couldn't find anything about it in recent discussion threads and forums and i would like to know if somebody else has n opinion about this.

In article <n3mrj0971vo0q4ju9eo0gfmu9k69tc2v1l@4ax.com>, WB says...
>
>Hello,
>
>I am new to D. I was looking for something like this for a long time. IMHO D provides the best of C and C++, improving it. So if D could also provide the best of Java it would be perfect.
>
>The best of Java is the Java API. In Java you open a window and draw a picture from an input stream of pixels with 10 lines of code, because of the Java API Class library:
>

Java is pretty different, IMHO. It has a very different philosophy (write once,
run it everywhere).

>java.awt.Frame
>java.awt.Image
>java.io.InputStream
>etc.
>
>D could provide it's own API Class library providing classes for windowing, io, etc. at some high abstraction level in Java fashion, something like
>
>d.awt.*
>d.xml.*
>d.crypto.*
>...
>

It could, but it shouldn't be part of the actual language standard. There are things like phobos and template libraries that could be standard though. But I don't think anything like a windowing toolkit should be standard, since who would make that standard? What about the platforms? It would be 'so' hard to maintain.

>as a part of the language, along with the low level std.* Phobos runtime library.
>
>Platform versioning makes it easy (well...) to have such a class library platform independent, and if a class is not ported at least you let the compiler know that it is not supported on that platform.
>
>I know that this is a HUGE feature request that can't be done for next month.
>
>But if something like this would be known to be under construction it could be another good argument for people switching to D.
>
>Most probably  this is not a new topic at all, but I couldn't find anything about it in recent discussion threads and forums and i would like to know if somebody else has n opinion about this.
>

I don't think D needs this, D is revolutionary enough in most of it's features. More 'in box' functionality is always fun, but only abstract functionality, and D provides this. Concrete functionality, such as windowing toolkits, are just not top priority or really a language responsability. What is more important is abstract functionality, things the language provides to achieve things as windowing toolkits, or managing big projects better, debugging etc.

-Joey

There are application frameworks in development. For example, a wxWidgets wrapper and a library designed after IBM's SWT.

Talk also has been that there would be something like a common distribution with most needed libraries, which could become de-facto standard.

-eye

WB wrote:
> Hello,
> 
> I am new to D. I was looking for something like this for a long time.
> IMHO D provides the best of C and C++, improving it. So if D could
> also provide the best of Java it would be perfect.
> 
> The best of Java is the Java API. In Java you open a window and draw a
> picture from an input stream of pixels with 10 lines of code, because
> of the Java API Class library:
> 
> java.awt.Frame
> java.awt.Image

Various GUI libraries are being developed by different people. In case you might be interested in a particular project, here's a list: http://www.prowiki.org/wiki4d/wiki.cgi?AvailableGuiLibraries

When one of them breaks out as being the "best", Walter might ship it with the compiler (probably as a semi-official library).

-- 
Justin (a/k/a jcc7)
http://jcc_7.tripod.com/d/

In article <n3mrj0971vo0q4ju9eo0gfmu9k69tc2v1l@4ax.com>, WB says...

>d.awt.*
>d.xml.*
>d.crypto.*

Many of those things are already in development by various people. I'm partway through writing etc.crypto, for example. (I got sidetracked by Unicode, but cryptography remains my passion). GUI libraries are, I believe, under development by other folk (that's probably a frequently asked question). Not sure about XML, though I'm fairly sure there's a D wrapper around expat floating around somewhere.

Arcane Jill

On Tue, 7 Sep 2004 16:19:44 +0000 (UTC), Joey Peters
<Joey_member@pathlink.com> wrote:

>
>Java is pretty different, IMHO. It has a very different philosophy (write once,
>run it everywhere).

Right. But it's concept of a class library API might fit in the philosophy of a native compiled language. It may even help D to approach C's "write once, compile it everywhere" on a much higher level than C.

>don't think anything like a windowing toolkit should be standard, since who would make that standard? What about the platforms? It would be 'so' hard to maintain.
>

Following Java, that would be made standard by inclusion in the class tree. The code must be platform versioned, of course.

>Concrete functionality, such as windowing toolkits, are just not top priority

I agree about priority

>or really a language responsability.

Define "language responsability". Or better don't :), it's pretty clear how you define it. But you have to agree that you can define it the other way as well, like Java does. But ok, Java needs to, since the API is your only way out of the VM sandbox, besides writing native methods.

On Wed, 8 Sep 2004 06:51:19 +0000 (UTC), Arcane Jill
<Arcane_member@pathlink.com> wrote:

>Many of those things are already in development by various people. I'm partway
>through writing etc.crypto, for example. (I got sidetracked by Unicode, but
>cryptography remains my passion). GUI libraries are, I believe, under
>development by other folk (that's probably a frequently asked question). Not
>sure about XML,
>though I'm fairly sure there's a D wrapper around expat floating
>around somewhere.

I already found most of the GUI libraries pointed out in the replies
to my posting, thank you for your attention. Of course, if I need a
library for something i come here and ask if one exists before
starting to write it by myself.
But my question was about your opinion about making those libraries
part of the language (searching for GUI libraries brought up that
thoughts about a java-like standard library in the first place).

Until now, I got 4 "Bad Idea" against 1 "Good Idea" (my own :).

WB schrieb:

> Until now, I got 4 "Bad Idea" against 1 "Good Idea" (my own :).

You are seeing it way too negative. I think we rather agree a standard of a sort will establish itself, and it is necessary. On the other hand, it's not "one size fits all" so it was decided not to make non-elementary features part of the standard. It's a compromise. And Walter has been cooperative in bundling his compiler. So if anyone creates a complete development system with an application framework, he can probably get permission tu bundle the compiler.

-eye

In article <nottj056b4hcrng6i3t00g0r074lcj5fsh@4ax.com>, WB says...

>But my question was about your opinion about making those libraries part of the language (searching for GUI libraries brought up that thoughts about a java-like standard library in the first place).
>
>Until now, I got 4 "Bad Idea" against 1 "Good Idea" (my own :).

Bad idea.
Jill

WB wrote:
> I already found most of the GUI libraries pointed out in the replies
> to my posting, thank you for your attention. Of course, if I need a
> library for something i come here and ask if one exists before
> starting to write it by myself. But my question was about your opinion about making those libraries
> part of the language (searching for GUI libraries brought up that
> thoughts about a java-like standard library in the first place). 
> 
> Until now, I got 4 "Bad Idea" against 1 "Good Idea" (my own :).

I'm fuzzy on what you mean by "Java-like". If you mean "everything is a class", I don't want D to go down that route. What do you think of "Python-like"? :)

Also, I don't know if any of the XML or GUI libraries are mature enough yet to add to the D standard library. Only recently has the syntax of the language been stabilizing. Soon, the major bugs will be squashed and the libraries will grow up. Then we can start adding to std.xml.* or std.ext.xml or whatever it is.

-- 
Justin (a/k/a jcc7)
http://jcc_7.tripod.com/d/