On 5 August 2015 at 06:12, ref2401 via Digitalmars-d <digitalmars-d@puremagic.com> wrote:
> On Tuesday, 4 August 2015 at 19:13:44 UTC, Rikki Cattermole wrote:
>>
>> On 5/08/2015 6:59 a.m., develop32 wrote:
>>>
>>> On Thursday, 30 July 2015 at 13:43:35 UTC, karabuta wrote:
>>>>
>>>> D is really cool and makes a good candidate for developing a game. Are there any guys out there using D for indie games?
>>>
>>>
>>> Not an indie game, but Remedy is making Quantum Break using D.
>>
>>
>> Got a source for that? As I can't find it.
>
>
> http://remedygames.com/job_offer/senior-tools-programmer/

Haha, it doesn't mention getting drunk, naked and doing laps of the
block in -30 degree winter with 20 of your (male) colleagues as a
necessary skill ;)

On 6/08/2015 11:18 p.m., Manu via Digitalmars-d wrote:
> On 5 August 2015 at 05:13, Rikki Cattermole via Digitalmars-d
> <digitalmars-d@puremagic.com> wrote:
>> On 5/08/2015 6:59 a.m., develop32 wrote:
>>>
>>> On Thursday, 30 July 2015 at 13:43:35 UTC, karabuta wrote:
>>>>
>>>> D is really cool and makes a good candidate for developing a game. Are
>>>> there any guys out there using D for indie games?
>>>
>>>
>>> Not an indie game, but Remedy is making Quantum Break using D.
>>
>>
>> Got a source for that? As I can't find it.
>
> Hi. I dunnit, and I did a talk about it at dconf2013.

I knew you were involved with them back then. I was more interested in anything that happened after that.

On 06/08/15 08:29, Rikki Cattermole wrote:

> 5. Cocoa bindings added to Phobos. Not optional.
>
> This all needs to happen _before_ we start working on a window library
> for Phobos.
> Let alone a GUI.
>
> We're mostly got problems with Cocoa. X11 bindings just need to be
> changed to dynamically bound.

I think now with the new extern(Objective-C) it's a minor issue. Even though the whole Objective-C support isn't implemented yet, I think the current support is good enough to create bindings which a window library can be built upon. We could keep the bindings internal to avoid chancing the public API later when better support is implemented.

-- 
/Jacob Carlborg

On 6 August 2015 at 21:23, Rikki Cattermole via Digitalmars-d <digitalmars-d@puremagic.com> wrote:
> On 6/08/2015 11:18 p.m., Manu via Digitalmars-d wrote:
>>
>> On 5 August 2015 at 05:13, Rikki Cattermole via Digitalmars-d <digitalmars-d@puremagic.com> wrote:
>>>
>>> On 5/08/2015 6:59 a.m., develop32 wrote:
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> On Thursday, 30 July 2015 at 13:43:35 UTC, karabuta wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> D is really cool and makes a good candidate for developing a game. Are there any guys out there using D for indie games?
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> Not an indie game, but Remedy is making Quantum Break using D.
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> Got a source for that? As I can't find it.
>>
>>
>> Hi. I dunnit, and I did a talk about it at dconf2013.
>
>
> I knew you were involved with them back then. I was more interested in anything that happened after that.

It took a lot longer for us to get the compiler to a sufficiently
stable state that we were able to build reliably than we'd liked. In
the mean time, code pegged for D was forced to be written in C, so a
lot of D code ended out being C code on account of 'couldn't wait'.
When I left, there were a couple of critical systems running in D, and
a few toolchain issues left to work out (Windows DLL's + GC). It was
left with Ethan who occasionally appears here.
I'm not sure where it went after that. There was much enthusiasm among
the team, but the toolchain progressed slower than we could afford,
and we just had to get on with it in some cases. Hopefully there's
still some D code in there, and (if the problems were fixed!) there's
no good reason why it wouldn't have scaled out from where I left it.

On 6/08/2015 11:30 p.m., Manu via Digitalmars-d wrote:
> On 6 August 2015 at 21:23, Rikki Cattermole via Digitalmars-d
> <digitalmars-d@puremagic.com> wrote:
>> On 6/08/2015 11:18 p.m., Manu via Digitalmars-d wrote:
>>>
>>> On 5 August 2015 at 05:13, Rikki Cattermole via Digitalmars-d
>>> <digitalmars-d@puremagic.com> wrote:
>>>>
>>>> On 5/08/2015 6:59 a.m., develop32 wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> On Thursday, 30 July 2015 at 13:43:35 UTC, karabuta wrote:
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> D is really cool and makes a good candidate for developing a game. Are
>>>>>> there any guys out there using D for indie games?
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> Not an indie game, but Remedy is making Quantum Break using D.
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> Got a source for that? As I can't find it.
>>>
>>>
>>> Hi. I dunnit, and I did a talk about it at dconf2013.
>>
>>
>> I knew you were involved with them back then. I was more interested in
>> anything that happened after that.
>
> It took a lot longer for us to get the compiler to a sufficiently
> stable state that we were able to build reliably than we'd liked. In
> the mean time, code pegged for D was forced to be written in C, so a
> lot of D code ended out being C code on account of 'couldn't wait'.
> When I left, there were a couple of critical systems running in D, and
> a few toolchain issues left to work out (Windows DLL's + GC). It was
> left with Ethan who occasionally appears here.
> I'm not sure where it went after that. There was much enthusiasm among
> the team, but the toolchain progressed slower than we could afford,
> and we just had to get on with it in some cases. Hopefully there's
> still some D code in there, and (if the problems were fixed!) there's
> no good reason why it wouldn't have scaled out from where I left it.

Yeah I hope it had. Although would be nice to hear from Remedy what they currently use / think of D.
I kinda hoped that they had released e.g. a blog post about it, which they haven't.

On 6/08/2015 11:29 p.m., Jacob Carlborg wrote:
> On 06/08/15 08:29, Rikki Cattermole wrote:
>
>> 5. Cocoa bindings added to Phobos. Not optional.
>>
>> This all needs to happen _before_ we start working on a window library
>> for Phobos.
>> Let alone a GUI.
>>
>> We're mostly got problems with Cocoa. X11 bindings just need to be
>> changed to dynamically bound.
>
> I think now with the new extern(Objective-C) it's a minor issue. Even
> though the whole Objective-C support isn't implemented yet, I think the
> current support is good enough to create bindings which a window library
> can be built upon. We could keep the bindings internal to avoid chancing
> the public API later when better support is implemented.

Yeah. I only mentioned it as a bigger problem then say X11 because we already have X11 bindings. They are just statically linked. Not to mention old.

Vs Cocoa support which requires a very "young" compiler additions.

But hey, I'm not worried. At the worse case scenario we'll keep to my current method of using Objective-C directly and exporting a c API to be used instead. So D side is merely a wrapper.


But yes, I like the idea of internal bindings to Cocoa. But given my timeline for a window creation library for Phobos is middle of next year. Lets just say I'm in no rush.

On Thursday, 6 August 2015 at 09:18:44 UTC, Benjamin Thaut wrote:
> [snip]
> 
> Kind Regards
> Benjamin Thaut

Thanks.

On Thursday, 6 August 2015 at 00:05:34 UTC, Tofu Ninja wrote:
> On Thursday, 30 July 2015 at 13:43:35 UTC, karabuta wrote:
>> D is really cool and makes a good candidate for developing a game. Are there any guys out there using D for indie games?
>>
>> For some time I have been seeing some cool game engine being developed in the DUB repo. What more is happening? I don't see derelictSDl and derelictSFML activities much. Whatup?
>
> One thing I would really like for D would be an opengl binding in phobos, there was some momentum a while ago to try to get graphics into phobos with Aurora, but literally nothing came of that. People want an all D gui, and graphics support but literally nothing will ever happen until we at least get some basic graphics interfaces like a simple windowing library and some opengl. We are already getting color and images, full on hw supported graphics is the next step.


Yes, +2000 for a D binding to opengl. That will be really cool for game development and plain D GUI tookits. I wish efforts were made to implement things like these.

On Thursday, 6 August 2015 at 06:30:06 UTC, Rikki Cattermole wrote:
> On 6/08/2015 12:05 p.m., Tofu Ninja wrote:
>>> [...]

>> [...]
> Here is what we need to do going forward (beyond what me and Manu are doing):
>
> [...]

Don't you think that's a lot to ask from phobos?

On Thursday, 6 August 2015 at 06:30:06 UTC, Rikki Cattermole wrote:
> Here is what we need to do going forward (beyond what me and Manu are doing):
>
> 1. Derelict-Util needs to be put into Phobos. This is not optional
> 2. Derelict-GL3 needs to be put into Phobos. Optional, but might be a damn good idea!
> 3. Windows API needs to be moved into either Phobos or druntime. Not optional.
> 4. X11 bindings added to Phobos. Not optional.
> 5. Cocoa bindings added to Phobos. Not optional.
>
> This all needs to happen _before_ we start working on a window library for Phobos.
> Let alone a GUI.
>
> We're mostly got problems with Cocoa. X11 bindings just need to be changed to dynamically bound.
>
> Windows API bindings if gone into druntime wouldn't need to go through the review cycle luckily. But would need some decent review on e.g. Github.

I really feel like D needs to get over it's "not invented here" syndrome, a much easier path would to just use a pre existing cross platform windowing library. Its laughable that the people in D want to reinvent this stuff. It's been done, just use the already working version! Why have all this great c and c++ interop if we never use it.

I have the same gripe with how the experimental.image is doing image loading/saving, there are plenty of already existing image libraries that already support every image format you could ever dream of. Just use them, they will work 1000x better than any reinvention that we do here.