"Anders F Björklund" <afb@algonet.se> wrote in message news:dsb971$68u$1@digitaldaemon.com...
> So I would think that DWT will end up having many *more* ?

It might. But Kris is working on a Java-to-D translation tool that will hopefully reduce the effort to something managable. It is not practical to do a C++-to-D translation tool. Furthermore, the SWT classes can be converted probably without a substantial redesign. That won't be true of C++, either.

On Tue, 7 Feb 2006 20:20:29 -0800, Walter Bright wrote:

> The trouble is, when you're doing a long compile, unless you see it on the screen you don't think to go look at a log file or whatever. Having the build not complete means you can't overlook it.

It seems we have different work practices. When I compile, I start from the first compiler message and work down the list, so I always see them all. I always compile with "-w" and a clean compile to me means that there are no compiler messages, and that is not the same as getting an executable built. After dealing with the compiler messages, I then start from the first linker message and work down that list. So again, I don't miss any. The thought of 'not thinking to look at a log file or whatever' is a manifestation of mediocracy and/or carelessness which I try to avoid.

-- 
Derek
(skype: derek.j.parnell)
Melbourne, Australia
"Down with mediocracy!"
8/02/2006 4:40:55 PM

Walter Bright wrote:
> "Anders F Björklund" <afb@algonet.se> wrote in message news:dsb971$68u$1@digitaldaemon.com...
> 
>>So I would think that DWT will end up having many *more* ?
> 
> 
> It might. But Kris is working on a Java-to-D translation tool that will hopefully reduce the effort to something managable. It is not practical to do a C++-to-D translation tool. Furthermore, the SWT classes can be converted probably without a substantial redesign. That won't be true of C++, either. 
> 
> 
I think a strong case has been made for SWT/DWT despite some of its drawbacks. Nonetheless, I hope that it doesn't come automatically bundled with D (or that there is a DWT-less package available). Just making sure that Walter's original idea of "people will still have a choice" isn't forgotten in light of all the enthusiasm.

Kris wrote:
> "Sean Kelly" <sean@f4.ca> wrote in..
>> Out of curiosity, does SWT work on any non-standard architectures? Could I write an app using SWT and run it on a PocketPC?
> 
> From the prior links: http://www.eclipse.org/articles/Article-small-cup-of-swt/pocket-PC.html
> 
> The Win32 version is a superset of the PocketPC one. However, you'd need a GDC targeting ARM/XScale or H8S. 

That's fine.  I was mostly curious about just how portable DWT might be :-)


Sean

Walter Bright wrote:
> 
> Oh, I know how to do both of those things. The trouble is, when you're doing a long compile, unless you see it on the screen you don't think to go look at a log file or whatever. Having the build not complete means you can't overlook it. 

If I'm building with non-terminal warnings I'll usually just grep the output to track down anything relevant.  Heck, I'll even do this for fatal build errors on large projects as it's not uncommon to have a thousand lines or so of junk following the message I care about.  I would like to believe that those who enable warnings also care enough to check them, but treating them as errors certainly offers some encouragement :-)


Sean

"Sean Kelly" <sean@f4.ca> wrote in message news:dsc617$u4g$1@digitaldaemon.com...
> Kris wrote:
>> "Sean Kelly" <sean@f4.ca> wrote in..
>>> Out of curiosity, does SWT work on any non-standard architectures? Could I write an app using SWT and run it on a PocketPC?
>>
>> From the prior links: http://www.eclipse.org/articles/Article-small-cup-of-swt/pocket-PC.html
>>
>> The Win32 version is a superset of the PocketPC one. However, you'd need a GDC targeting ARM/XScale or H8S.
>
> That's fine.  I was mostly curious about just how portable DWT might be :-)
>
>
> Sean

On the other side :)

www.superwaba.com
It is micro JavaVM (not from Sun) with GUI runtime built into
VM executable.
http://www.superwaba.com.br/en/vantagens.asp

It supports:

Palm OS 3.0 or higher
Windows CE 2.11 or higher, Pocket PC, .Net
Symbian 7.0
Windows 98 or higher
Linux desktop.

Architecture of GUI toolkit is similar to: QT/Swing approach
(widgets are part of toolkit)

Screenshots are on the bottom of page (link above)

There is no GUI toolkit in the wild capable to support
such set of platforms in the single codebase of custom application.


Andrew.

In article <dsai30$2eim$2@digitaldaemon.com>, Walter Bright says...
>
>
>>>(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?

I am not a lawyer, and I don't know which implications can arise from commercial use of such a big library. I'd ask the current developers, maybe they have more competent information.

As for taking a(nother) project lead, I'm sorry but I think I have enough projects to run in my everyday work, plus at home I have my two 4-months-old babies to deal with. Maybe in a couple of years I can think of doing it, but I bet I won't have time anyway.

Ciao

---
http://www.mariottini.net/roberto/

Walter Bright wrote:

> It might. But Kris is working on a Java-to-D translation tool that will hopefully reduce the effort to something managable. It is not practical to do a C++-to-D translation tool. Furthermore, the SWT classes can be converted probably without a substantial redesign. That won't be true of C++, either. 

Nope, especially not with all the preprocessor tricks that are common...

This is why the two projects I've seen: use C# for the class hierarchy,
and keep the library in C++ and just link to it instead of porting it.

While C# isn't identical to D, it is more "translatable" than C++ is...
But those translation tools are more like "Perl hacks" than tools. :-)

--anders

Sean Kelly wrote:

>> Guess it all comes down to if you want a GUI lib *written* in D,
>> or if you just want a GUI *usable* from D code (i.e. external/C++)
> 
> Written in D is obviously ideal.

It might be less obvious than you think, though. Having to rewrite
C or C++ libraries in D, is much more work than just using them... ?

It is less work for port the headers for C, and do wrappers for C++.
(and gives the major advantage that system headers/libs are usable)


Now, if we were talking a *new* library, things would be different.

--anders

"Anders F Björklund" <afb@algonet.se> wrote in message news:dsca31$115k$1@digitaldaemon.com...
> Walter Bright wrote:
>> It might. But Kris is working on a Java-to-D translation tool that will hopefully reduce the effort to something managable. It is not practical to do a C++-to-D translation tool. Furthermore, the SWT classes can be converted probably without a substantial redesign. That won't be true of C++, either.
> Nope, especially not with all the preprocessor tricks that are common...

The preprocessor tricks are annoying, but are not the real problem. The real problem is how C++ does memory allocation, and how that affects everything.

> While C# isn't identical to D, it is more "translatable" than C++ is... But those translation tools are more like "Perl hacks" than tools. :-)

Perl hacks can seduce you by getting you 25% there quickly, but then you run into a brick wall. Writing a real lexer and parser is much simpler.