Matthew Wilson wrote:
> 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.?

Plug into Eclipse. :)

-i.

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

Well, and some algorithms and such.

> But D deserve a better stdlib than it.
> It's a main feature.

True. But D library design can't get off until there are properties with getters and setters! They are crucial for library design, i believe.

.i,

In article <bg9a56$24e3$1@digitaldaemon.com>, Ilya Minkov says...
>
>Matthew Wilson wrote:
>> 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.?
>
>Plug into Eclipse. :)

agreed, it works well on Windows and Linux and is well supported

BUT I think an IDE has little to do with acceptance of text based languages

everybody has their favorite editor

> BUT I think an IDE has little to do with acceptance of text based
languages
> everybody has their favorite editor

I agree, I don't think that an IDE makes or breaks a language.  Besides we already have a great IDE, emacs!

Charles

"Mark T" <Mark_member@pathlink.com> wrote in message news:bg9ffi$2an3$1@digitaldaemon.com...
> In article <bg9a56$24e3$1@digitaldaemon.com>, Ilya Minkov says...
> >
> >Matthew Wilson wrote:
> >> 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.?
> >
> >Plug into Eclipse. :)
>
> agreed, it works well on Windows and Linux and is well supported
>
> BUT I think an IDE has little to do with acceptance of text based
languages
>
> everybody has their favorite editor
>
>