>   - A fully integrated IDE for D:
> * An editor with all the current tricks.
> * Visual window and component editing
> would be very good, and I think doable
> in D.
> * A good class and project browser.
> * Project management and starter templates
> which people can use to get started creating
> applications and libraries.
> * A fully integrated debugger.
>    I think basically programmers like to code and work
> with good tools. From my perspective, D is the best
> language solution for the time, incorporating all of
> the features that I have been looking for since Java
> was introduced. Package D with a modern development
> environment and I think you would be giving programmers
> a great incentive to adapt D.

Hear, hear.

In fact,   hear, hear!

This will be what determines whether D makes it or not. I know it's shallow, but it's true nonetheless.

"Matthew Wilson" <matthew@stlsoft.org> wrote in message news:bg6tbt$2lph$1@digitaldaemon.com...
>
> >   - A fully integrated IDE for D:
> > * An editor with all the current tricks.
> > * Visual window and component editing
> > would be very good, and I think doable
> > in D.
> > * A good class and project browser.
> > * Project management and starter templates
> > which people can use to get started creating
> > applications and libraries.
> > * A fully integrated debugger.
> >    I think basically programmers like to code and work
> > with good tools. From my perspective, D is the best
> > language solution for the time, incorporating all of
> > the features that I have been looking for since Java
> > was introduced. Package D with a modern development
> > environment and I think you would be giving programmers
> > a great incentive to adapt D.
>
> Hear, hear.
>
> In fact,   hear, hear!
>
> This will be what determines whether D makes it or not. I know it's
shallow,
> but it's true nonetheless.

I've got my hands full supporting the compiler and runtime. For the IDE, etc.,  someone else will need to take the lead on it.

Absolutely. It was not my implication to do otherwise. <blush>

It's going to need a good basic extensible design (from someone with more time that you or I), and then individuals creating the plug-ins that they are interested/able to implement. If the first part can be done (i.e. someone smart/experience enough can be found with enough time), and the second can be managed successfully, then it'll be a go-er.



"Walter" <walter@digitalmars.com> wrote in message news:bg703h$2o83$2@digitaldaemon.com...
>
> "Matthew Wilson" <matthew@stlsoft.org> wrote in message news:bg6tbt$2lph$1@digitaldaemon.com...
> >
> > >   - A fully integrated IDE for D:
> > > * An editor with all the current tricks.
> > > * Visual window and component editing
> > > would be very good, and I think doable
> > > in D.
> > > * A good class and project browser.
> > > * Project management and starter templates
> > > which people can use to get started creating
> > > applications and libraries.
> > > * A fully integrated debugger.
> > >    I think basically programmers like to code and work
> > > with good tools. From my perspective, D is the best
> > > language solution for the time, incorporating all of
> > > the features that I have been looking for since Java
> > > was introduced. Package D with a modern development
> > > environment and I think you would be giving programmers
> > > a great incentive to adapt D.
> >
> > Hear, hear.
> >
> > In fact,   hear, hear!
> >
> > This will be what determines whether D makes it or not. I know it's
> shallow,
> > but it's true nonetheless.
>
> I've got my hands full supporting the compiler and runtime. For the IDE, etc.,  someone else will need to take the lead on it.
>
>

Walter wrote:
> "Matthew Wilson" <matthew@stlsoft.org> wrote in message
> news:bg6tbt$2lph$1@digitaldaemon.com...
> 
>>>  - A fully integrated IDE for D:
<snip>
>>>was introduced. Package D with a modern development
>>>environment and I think you would be giving programmers
>>>a great incentive to adapt D.
>>Hear, hear.
>>In fact,   hear, hear!
>>This will be what determines whether D makes it or not. I know it's
> shallow,
>>but it's true nonetheless.

I find myself thinking about Turbo Pascal, which was very inexpensive,
fast and easy to use, and hugely successful in it's time.
Of course I also think of MS's dominance in the tools department,
and this was possible because of all they dedicated to making
developing apps so very easy. No small task at all.

> I've got my hands full supporting the compiler and runtime. For the IDE,
> etc.,  someone else will need to take the lead on it.

Absolutely Walter. I think everyone here realizes that you are the
one that made all this happen, and who is already doing and
giving so much to make what D promises possible.

In article <3F2689B9.5070608@viasic.com>, Bill Cox says...
>
>Hi.

Hi Bill!

> <snip>
>I can't think of a language that I can get paid to use that doesn't have some killer application.  Just being a better language is the motivation behind most languages.  However, that doesn't seem to be enough to gain widespread acceptance.
>
>I can't think of what D's killer application will be, but I don't think it will be any of the ones I've listed, since these already have so much momentum in other languages.
>
>Any ideas?
>
>Bill


I have some ideas!

Look at PowerBasic.com

As far as I can tell, that language is
not even object oriented,  <-- look!
but it still seems to sell fairly well at
$200 per copy.  <-- look!

So my suggestion is that D initially goes after this same market,
for people who want to build small, self-contained, .EXE's
(for example, shareware utilities)
without the headache of using C or C++, and without having to do GC.

I don't think adding more features would help that much. Ease of use is what is most important.

Also it looks like adding CTAGS support for D would not be hard, but would bring a lot of benefit.

CTAGS parses a file into things like: classes macro definitions (and #undef names) enumerators function definitions enumeration names class, struct, or union members namespaces function prototypes and declarations structure names typedefs union names variable definitions extern and forward variable declarations

Then editors like VIM can use this information to help the user navigate around the code.

Does anyone have any better ideas?

keith.fuller
keithfx@ho+mail.com

That's a great idea!

Charles

"Keith Fuller" <Keith_member@pathlink.com> wrote in message news:bg7fb7$5ai$1@digitaldaemon.com...
> In article <3F2689B9.5070608@viasic.com>, Bill Cox says...
> >
> >Hi.
>
> Hi Bill!
>
> > <snip>
> >I can't think of a language that I can get paid to use that doesn't have some killer application.  Just being a better language is the motivation behind most languages.  However, that doesn't seem to be enough to gain widespread acceptance.
> >
> >I can't think of what D's killer application will be, but I don't think it will be any of the ones I've listed, since these already have so much momentum in other languages.
> >
> >Any ideas?
> >
> >Bill
>
>
> I have some ideas!
>
> Look at PowerBasic.com
>
> As far as I can tell, that language is
> not even object oriented,  <-- look!
> but it still seems to sell fairly well at
> $200 per copy.  <-- look!
>
> So my suggestion is that D initially goes after this same market,
> for people who want to build small, self-contained, .EXE's
> (for example, shareware utilities)
> without the headache of using C or C++, and without having to do GC.
>
> I don't think adding more features would help that much. Ease of use is what is most important.
>
> Also it looks like adding CTAGS support for D would not be hard, but would bring a lot of benefit.
>
> CTAGS parses a file into things like:
> classes
> macro definitions (and #undef names)
> enumerators
> function definitions
> enumeration names
> class, struct, or union members
> namespaces
> function prototypes and declarations
> structure names
> typedefs
> union names
> variable definitions
> extern and forward variable declarations
>
> Then editors like VIM can use this information to help the user navigate around the code.
>
> Does anyone have any better ideas?
>
> keith.fuller
> keithfx@ho+mail.com
>
>
>

"Frank Wills" <name@host.com> wrote in message news:bg72c8$2qh3$1@digitaldaemon.com...
> > I've got my hands full supporting the compiler and runtime. For the IDE, etc.,  someone else will need to take the lead on it.
> Absolutely Walter. I think everyone here realizes that you are the one that made all this happen, and who is already doing and giving so much to make what D promises possible.


There are so many C++ ide's around, couldn't one open source one be adapted?

Walter wrote:
> "Frank Wills" <name@host.com> wrote in message
> news:bg72c8$2qh3$1@digitaldaemon.com...
> 
>>>I've got my hands full supporting the compiler and runtime. For the IDE,
>>>etc.,  someone else will need to take the lead on it.
>>
>>Absolutely Walter. I think everyone here realizes that you are the
>>one that made all this happen, and who is already doing and
>>giving so much to make what D promises possible.
> 
> There are so many C++ ide's around, couldn't one open source one be adapted?
> 

That could be. I'll spend some time in the next week looking
into it.

I think it would be better to plug into (a wide variety of) existing ones. Sure we can do Visual Studio, but what about Metrowerks, Dev C++, Borland, DM, etc.?

"Walter" <walter@digitalmars.com> wrote in message news:bg7k3b$a9r$1@digitaldaemon.com...
>
> "Frank Wills" <name@host.com> wrote in message news:bg72c8$2qh3$1@digitaldaemon.com...
> > > I've got my hands full supporting the compiler and runtime. For the
IDE,
> > > etc.,  someone else will need to take the lead on it.
> > Absolutely Walter. I think everyone here realizes that you are the one that made all this happen, and who is already doing and giving so much to make what D promises possible.
>
>
> There are so many C++ ide's around, couldn't one open source one be
adapted?
>
>

"Ilya Minkov" <midiclub@8ung.at> a écrit dans le message news: bg6j4i$2b38$1@digitaldaemon.com...

> You *vastly* underrate STL. STL is *the* thing, which makes C++ into a really usable programming language. And of course it contains all kinds of lists, maps, sets, ... Just name it.

Ok but only string,containers and some io. chainlist was a bad example i agree.

> Now, you consider it worse than a D library and a Perl library?

So let say ** =)
But D deserve a better stdlib than it.
It's a main feature.

-- Nicolas Repiquet