Anders F Björklund wrote:
> David Medlock wrote:
> 
>> Isn't that GPL?
>> I vote lets not force any D developers into (L)GPL type licensing issues.  That type of 'freedom' discourages commercial use (despite what the pundits say).
> 
> It's not really fair to bundle GPL and LGPL like that I think...
> The *LGPL* will only affect the library development, not the use.
> 
> The only "downside" to the LGPL is the dynamic link requirement ?
> (It's possible to explicitly allow static linking as an exception)

rant
Personally, I think the default LGPL license is the most ridiculous one I've seen, "Arse licence" included. The dynamic linking requirement doesn't benefit anyone. It's annoying for commercial use, but it doesn't benefit open source at all. GPL makes a lot of sense (in the right context, but definitely not for D standard libraries), but LGPL is just nuts.
/rant

Shawn Liu wrote:
> 
> Why all those companies support that technically inferior solution?

Why did Linux get so much support with FreeBSD around?  Technical merit isn't always the deal-breaker.


Sean

Roberto Mariottini wrote:
> In article <ds9kot$1j45$1@digitaldaemon.com>, Walter Bright says...
>>
> [...]
>> Keep in mind, though, that AWT despite its flaws is what got Java off the ground and kept it going for the initial few years.
> 
> I completely disagree. I used Java from the beginning, and I can remember for
> sure that Java was nearly dead because of AWT. I remember the "Corel Office for
> Java" thing very well. Swing was the right choice, making Java exit the niche of
> server-side applications.

Wasn't the big problem with AWT that it was slow?  And also partially because it didn't look like a native app?  And Swing was created to address these issues?  I've kept my eye on Java just enough to not really know what's going on ;-)

>> (I don't think AWT or Swing are contenders for D because of Sun licensing issues.)
> 
> I hate to repeat myself, but there is a free Swing available at
> www.classpath.org.

Free as in beer?  I'd prefer to settle on something soon, but if someone can make a case for Swing or Qt or whatever over SWT then please do so.


Sean

> My #1 point is that SWT is just a horrible option.

LOL.  Reminds me of the phrase 'Opinions are like assholes, everyones got em.'

I have heard the exact opposite , that QT is not only awful to use ( as some weird C++ hybrid beast , requiring its own build mechanism 'qmake' ), but that its very pricey ( $1,500 annualy last time i checked ).



"nick" <nick.atamas@gmail.com> wrote in message news:ds9bg6$1bto$1@digitaldaemon.com...
> Walter Bright wrote:
> > "Sean Kelly" <sean@f4.ca> wrote in message news:ds8tqr$11ti$1@digitaldaemon.com...
> >> The problem is that while the D libraries are open source, not all applications using D will be.  Given the viral nature of open-source licenses, I think this would prevent Qt from being used in such a
project,
> >> no?
> >
> > That's right. A *standard* component of D needs to be usable by
commercial
> > projects without needing to pay license fees. That would be no problem
if Qt
> > were optional, but if it was standard it would impede the adoption of D.
> >
>
> I made several rush posts from work, and I want to take this post to remove any ambiguity.
>
> My #1 point is that SWT is just a horrible option. I used it at work and I am biased against it, but I know it well enough to say that this: <http://www.hacknot.info/hacknot/action/showEntry?eid=74> is all true. AWT and Swing really aren't much better.
>
> QT is amazing, and people love it, but we can't use it. Now that I have
> Walter's blessing, I will attempt to contact Scott and ask him for
> guidance in this matter. I will also gather info on existing options.
> The least we will get out of this is a good picture of where things stand.

"Anders F Björklund" <afb@algonet.se> wrote in message news:ds9m7m$1kjh$1@digitaldaemon.com...
> PS.
> And there still needs to be Qt C++ -> D wrappers written,
> which could prove to be a lot of work to accomplish too ?

That's right. It's entirely possible it is too much to be practical.

"Roberto Mariottini" <Roberto_member@pathlink.com> wrote in message news:ds9lqd$1k95$1@digitaldaemon.com...
> In article <ds9kot$1j45$1@digitaldaemon.com>, Walter Bright says...
>>Keep in mind, though, that AWT despite its flaws is what got Java off the ground and kept it going for the initial few years.
>
> I completely disagree. I used Java from the beginning, and I can remember
> for
> sure that Java was nearly dead because of AWT. I remember the "Corel
> Office for
> Java" thing very well. Swing was the right choice, making Java exit the
> niche of
> server-side applications.

Everyone agrees that AWT is no good, but still Java wouldn't have gotten *anywhere* without it. Yes, I know about the Corel debacle.

>>(I don't think AWT or
>>Swing are contenders for D because of Sun licensing issues.)
>
> I hate to repeat myself, but there is a free Swing available at www.classpath.org.

Thank-you. I checked the license for it. It appears to allow commercial use of it, though I am not sure. Are you interested in taking the lead on this?

"Derek Parnell" <derek@psych.ward> wrote in message news:kd76gxwx1ay2.19m4wymne8pm$.dlg@40tude.net...
> * Why are some of the module statements wrong? (I've sent you the list
> twice now)

Sloth on my part.

> * Why are some module statements missing? (I've also sent you this list)

Sloth on my part for the ones in std. For the ones in internal, they are irrelevant, because those modules are not meant to ever be imported.

> * Why don't you want others to recompile Phobos using a heightened measure of caution (ie "-w" switch)

In the previous long, and heated, discussions on this issue, I argued passionately that the -w style code reduces readability, maintainability, and reliability. I don't think there's anything to be added to that.

This current thread only reinforces my opinion that the mere existence of warnings is a mistake in any language, as it causes unresolvable debates about "is this code right or wrong?"

Micke wrote:
> Some thoughts on cross platform gui toolkits.
> 
> <SNIP>
> 
> /Micke

Thanks for the input, Micke.

Here is a listing of GUI toolkits(it's been around for a while); it isn't up to date, but you should get people started.

http://www.geocities.com/SiliconValley/Vista/7184/guitool.html

P.S. Should we, maybe start a new thread? This one is getting kind of long.

Walter Bright wrote:

>>And there still needs to be Qt C++ -> D wrappers written,
>>which could prove to be a lot of work to accomplish too ?
> 
> That's right. It's entirely possible it is too much to be practical. 

If anyone is willing to undertake such a project (i.e. not me !),
I think you could use code from http://qtcsharp.sourceforge.net/

It could be made to work, in a similar manner to wxD, by porting
the class hierarchy over from Qt# and the wrappers over from QtC
(a generated sublayer inside of Qt# that wraps the C++ in extern "C",
Seems that they have switched over to some XML-based SWIG workalike)

From the Qt# home page, they say there are 476 classes converted...


You would still face the same licensing issues as the C++ version,
though. (i.e. this "Open Source" version is under the GPL license)

--anders

In article <dsai30$2eim$3@digitaldaemon.com>, Walter Bright says...
>
>
>"Derek Parnell" <derek@psych.ward> wrote in message news:kd76gxwx1ay2.19m4wymne8pm$.dlg@40tude.net...
>> * Why are some of the module statements wrong? (I've sent you the list
>> twice now)
>
>Sloth on my part.
>
>> * Why are some module statements missing? (I've also sent you this list)
>
>Sloth on my part for the ones in std. For the ones in internal, they are irrelevant, because those modules are not meant to ever be imported.
>
>> * Why don't you want others to recompile Phobos using a heightened measure of caution (ie "-w" switch)
>
>In the previous long, and heated, discussions on this issue, I argued passionately that the -w style code reduces readability, maintainability, and reliability. I don't think there's anything to be added to that.
>
>This current thread only reinforces my opinion that the mere existence of warnings is a mistake in any language, as it causes unresolvable debates about "is this code right or wrong?"
>
>


So why not instead treat the compiler -w option as a LINT like tool.  I know it's *not* LINT, but maybe it's just a terminology thing that's hanging things up.  Treat -w like LINT and allow the compiler to compile through the 'warnings'.  Maybe instead of 'warnings', they should be 'code that you are highly advised to look at, because the compiler doesn't agree with you'.

I'm not trying to be sarcastic.  If the term 'warnings' has such an ingrained meaning for everyone, then call it something else.  As a side-effect -- granted it's not a full-blown LINT tool -- it's kind of nice to have *some* of that functionality in the compiler.

Just my (naive as they may be) thoughts.

-Kramer