"It would be cool if somebody will handle developing of DFL. It's
better to have one such toolkit, than tons of complex and not
finished toolkits."

isn't that the truth. as much as i like D, i find it unusable for me, since i do not have a ui-/db-toolkit. i want to use the language, not invent everything every step or fight for it.
people here are sure smart and dedicated, but they develop very complex and badly documented/exampled libraries etc.

i think D will not pick up as much as the developer think since it does not offer the the small little things that make it possible to develop (by joe blow) software easily and fast.

i don't care for linux and complexity.

thank you all.

On Tuesday, 13 May 2014 at 20:42:11 UTC, jack death wrote:
> "It would be cool if somebody will handle developing of DFL. It's
> better to have one such toolkit, than tons of complex and not
> finished toolkits."

Tkd is finished.
Gtk-D is finished.

You aren't going to get very far unless you actually learn to use
your tools, complex or not. Tkd is about as simple as it gets for
GUI programming. Tkd-D is more complex but that's the price you
pay for needing to create something more complex.

> isn't that the truth. as much as i like D, i find it unusable for me, since i do not have a ui-/db-toolkit. i want to use the language, not invent everything every step or fight for it.

You've obviously never looked.

https://github.com/gtkd-developers/GtkD
https://github.com/nomad-software/tkd
https://github.com/rejectedsoftware/mysql-native
http://dlang.org/phobos/etc_c_sqlite3.html
https://github.com/adilbaig/Tiny-Redis
http://www.wikiservice.at/d/wiki.cgi?DatabaseBindings

On Tuesday, 13 May 2014 at 19:02:03 UTC, Jacob Carlborg wrote:
> On 2014-05-13 12:14, FrankLike wrote:
>
>> Look at the   Button class in DWT.
>> In Linux ,button class need 844 lines,but in win32 ,button class need
>> >1300 lines.
>> Look at the setText Method in button class.
>>  There is a great difference between in Linux and in Win32.
>>
>> public void setText (String string) {}
>>
>> But if the same thing in DFL, the codes will be less. Because in Win32
>> ,DFL only need 270~280 lines for button class.
>
> If you look at the code you can see that DWT supports buttons with text and images, which DFL doesn't. What I'm saying is that DWT does more than DFL, supports more features.

|t  is easy to support by modifing the  baseButton  for DFL,or add anew imageButton.

On Tuesday, 13 May 2014 at 15:20:36 UTC, FrankLike wrote:
> DFL is just a thin wrapper around Win32, no surprise. I've
>> found my apps written using DFL work quite fine in Linux via Wine, so I use them from both OSes.
>
> In Linux?The exe  was compiled in win32?
> Don't  play jokes  on it.

He's not joking, it is via wine.


As for the DFL/DWT,GTK-d,TKd comparison you need to compare apples with apples.

If you can improve DFL widgets so they:

1. support linux, windows, mac
2. support the same features as the "more complex" GUI widgets

With the constraint that:
3. DFL uses less LOC and reduces code complexity comapred to GTK-d and DWT

Then the comparison between DFL and other GUI libraries would be interesting.

Cheers,
ed

On Tuesday, 13 May 2014 at 23:26:20 UTC, ed wrote:
> On Tuesday, 13 May 2014 at 15:20:36 UTC, FrankLike wrote:
>> DFL is just a thin wrapper around Win32, no surprise. I've
>>> found my apps written using DFL work quite fine in Linux via Wine, so I use them from both OSes.
>>
>> In Linux?The exe  was compiled in win32?
>> Don't  play jokes  on it.
>
> He's not joking, it is via wine.
>
>
> As for the DFL/DWT,GTK-d,TKd comparison you need to compare apples with apples.
>
> If you can improve DFL widgets so they:
>
> 1. support linux, windows, mac
> 2. support the same features as the "more complex" GUI widgets
>
> With the constraint that:
> 3. DFL uses less LOC and reduces code complexity comapred to GTK-d and DWT
>
> Then the comparison between DFL and other GUI libraries would be interesting.
>
> Cheers,
> ed

Don't you want to look for the DFL's author Christopher E. Miller?

'DFL is Copyright (C) 2004-2010 Christopher E. Miller'

well you are wrong. but it turns stomach to waste a lot of time
searching in a huge collection of projects that were started and
not finished. those are still advertised in a wiki.
nobody wants a collection of incomplete shambles - its
unfortunatly a huge turn off.
one does pay a price for complex thing - sure - no problem. but
do they work not just for x32, are they complete ...
D/phobos is regrettably still a tinkertoy collection for people
that have plenty of time.

i mean no offence, i am just disapointed of the overall usability
of it all.


On Tuesday, 13 May 2014 at 21:23:04 UTC, Gary Willoughby wrote:
> On Tuesday, 13 May 2014 at 20:42:11 UTC, jack death wrote:
>> "It would be cool if somebody will handle developing of DFL. It's
>> better to have one such toolkit, than tons of complex and not
>> finished toolkits."
>
> Tkd is finished.
> Gtk-D is finished.
>
> You aren't going to get very far unless you actually learn to use
> your tools, complex or not. Tkd is about as simple as it gets for
> GUI programming. Tkd-D is more complex but that's the price you
> pay for needing to create something more complex.
>
>> isn't that the truth. as much as i like D, i find it unusable for me, since i do not have a ui-/db-toolkit. i want to use the language, not invent everything every step or fight for it.
>
> You've obviously never looked.
>
> https://github.com/gtkd-developers/GtkD
> https://github.com/nomad-software/tkd
> https://github.com/rejectedsoftware/mysql-native
> http://dlang.org/phobos/etc_c_sqlite3.html
> https://github.com/adilbaig/Tiny-Redis
> http://www.wikiservice.at/d/wiki.cgi?DatabaseBindings

>
> Although DFL not use on Linux or Mac os X,it's easy to do for high level Software Engineer.

Well, go ahead and do it!

On Wednesday, 14 May 2014 at 10:05:25 UTC, Dejan Lekic wrote:
>>
>> Although DFL not use on Linux or Mac os X,it's easy to do for high level Software Engineer.
>
> Well, go ahead and do it!

Don't you want to look for the DFL's author Christopher E. Miller?

'DFL is Copyright (C) 2004-2010 Christopher E. Miller

On Wednesday, 14 May 2014 at 06:14:16 UTC, FrankLike wrote:
> On Tuesday, 13 May 2014 at 23:26:20 UTC, ed wrote:
>> On Tuesday, 13 May 2014 at 15:20:36 UTC, FrankLike wrote:
>>> DFL is just a thin wrapper around Win32, no surprise. I've
>>>> found my apps written using DFL work quite fine in Linux via Wine, so I use them from both OSes.
>>>
>>> In Linux?The exe  was compiled in win32?
>>> Don't  play jokes  on it.
>>
>> He's not joking, it is via wine.
>>
>>
>> As for the DFL/DWT,GTK-d,TKd comparison you need to compare apples with apples.
>>
>> If you can improve DFL widgets so they:
>>
>> 1. support linux, windows, mac
>> 2. support the same features as the "more complex" GUI widgets
>>
>> With the constraint that:
>> 3. DFL uses less LOC and reduces code complexity comapred to GTK-d and DWT
>>
>> Then the comparison between DFL and other GUI libraries would be interesting.
>>
>> Cheers,
>> ed
>
> Don't you want to look for the DFL's author Christopher E. Miller?
>
> 'DFL is Copyright (C) 2004-2010 Christopher E. Miller'

Not particularly as I am not that interested in DFL. But you can work on DFL without the author, i.e. make improvements, port to Linux or whatever you wish.

http://dsource.org/projects/dfl/browser/trunk/win32/dfl/license.txt

The DFL library is under a 3-choice license, pick one that suits you: LGPL, ZLIB, DFL license.

Then go code  :)

Cheers,
ed