Joshua Cearley wrote:
> I may be particularly wrong here, but isn't this thread about the IUP binding? Comments are useful, but I do not believe that there should be a debate on net-etiquette on an announcement :p
> 
> -Skrylar


Is your post above about the IUP binding, Joshua?  ;D

Banter aside, examine the D newsgroups past history.  We don't necessarily follow typical Usenet rules about posts, which is one of my points.  We've gotten along fairly well despite that.

The community speaks as it sees fit. And until somebody like Walter puts some rules in place, I don't see anything changing.  I'm amazed the group has survived so well, self-governed as it is. :)

-JJR

Joshua Cearley wrote:

> I may be particularly wrong here, but isn't this thread about the IUP binding? Comments are useful, but I do not believe that there should be a debate on net-etiquette on an announcement :p

Intriguingly, the on-topic thread was in the "announce" newsgroup. :-)


Even more confusingly, I *think* that such discussions (= about GUI)
are supposed to go in the digitalmars.D.dwt group ? Even if not DWT.

But wherever it takes place, all the discussion and testing about the existing UI toolkits should be a good thing for D, as it needs help ?


IUP is a neat and slim toolkit, even if it is somewhat lowlevel
and only does Motif (beyond Windows) at the moment (not GTK/Mac)

There's plenty of details at http://www.tecgraf.puc-rio.br/iup/
(You should also check out: CD [Canvas Draw] and Lua, on there)

--anders

Anders F Björklund wrote:

> Joshua Cearley wrote:
> 
>> I may be particularly wrong here, but isn't this thread about the IUP binding? Comments are useful, but I do not believe that there should be a debate on net-etiquette on an announcement :p
> 
> Intriguingly, the on-topic thread was in the "announce" newsgroup. :-)
> 
> 
> Even more confusingly, I *think* that such discussions (= about GUI) are supposed to go in the digitalmars.D.dwt group ? Even if not DWT.
> 
> But wherever it takes place, all the discussion and testing about the existing UI toolkits should be a good thing for D, as it needs help ?
> 
> 
> IUP is a neat and slim toolkit, even if it is somewhat lowlevel
> and only does Motif (beyond Windows) at the moment (not GTK/Mac)

According to Roberto's blog, he is actually on his way to make a Qt backend, even got a window up.

Lars Ivar Igesund wrote:

>>IUP is a neat and slim toolkit, even if it is somewhat lowlevel
>>and only does Motif (beyond Windows) at the moment (not GTK/Mac)
> 
> According to Roberto's blog, he is actually on his way to make a Qt backend,
> even got a window up.

Well, even I got a window up in a Mac driver of IUP, before I stopped.
:-)

But I guess he'll be making more progress, even if it'll require Qt...
Qt4 is nice, even if it "costs" too much for my projects (GPL or $$$)


A Mac driver for IUP, and a Mac driver for MinWin, would still be neat;
but for the time being I'm just using wxWidgets as that is already done.

There's also a matter of the previous Mac drivers needing porting, from
QuickDraw and Toolbox - over to Quartz 2D and CoreFoundation/HIToolbox.

But the newer (Mac OS X 10.3+) UI system should be *easier* to write to,
as it now has a view hierarchy that the old system (OS 9 / 10.1) didn't.


As for GTK+, I have seen that it gives very good results on Linux and
it sure looks nicer than what the "oldskool" Motif interface does... ?

MinWin already does GTK+, and it wouldn't hurt if IUP did GTK+ too.
(think it has been on the IUP library "To Do" list for a while, but)

Even if the two libraries (IUP and MinWin) have different designs,
their "implementation" is somewhat similar - at least "in spirit" ?


One is table-driven and one is OOP, but they're both minimalistic...
Which has the positive side-effect of them being a lot smaller, too.

When compared with the big ones like SWT, Qt, or wxWidgets, I mean ?
(Looking at the newsgroup and forum, it seemed DWT grinded to a halt)

And it's possible to use the X11 versions on the Mac, while gathering
resources for true / native ports. OpenOffice does this, for instance.

--anders

Anders F Björklund wrote:
> 
> Even more confusingly, I *think* that such discussions (= about GUI)
> are supposed to go in the digitalmars.D.dwt group ? Even if not DWT.
> 

I agree they should. Unfortunately, given the NG name, it is highly unlikely that a newcomer will know that. :/


-- 
Bruno Medeiros - CS/E student
http://www.prowiki.org/wiki4d/wiki.cgi?BrunoMedeiros#D

In article <e2471c$1q1f$1@digitaldaemon.com>, Tom says...
>No offense but perhaps Stewart's way was a little too arrogant. The same could had been said with a less "pedantic" accent.

I agree it comes across as pedantic ("Welcome to newsgroups"). The same information could be relayed without being condescending.

By the way, it's some kind of form letter (not that that's necessarily a bad
thing):
http://www.digitalmars.com/drn-bin/wwwnews?D/29321
http://www.digitalmars.com/drn-bin/wwwnews?digitalmars.D.bugs/5485
http://www.digitalmars.com/drn-bin/wwwnews?digitalmars.D/16725

On the other hand, I don't like multiple posting, so I think we could cut Stewart some slack. Whether or not a person has newsgroup experience, I don't think it's polite for a newcomer (or even a veteran) to send the same post to multiple newsgroups and then cuss us out if someone says anything.

>I like D newsgroups very much because it's in general filled of mostly calm and clever people. ;)

I agree.

jcc7

In article <e24ro3$2rpk$1@digitaldaemon.com>, =?UTF-8?B?QW5kZXJzIEYgQmrDtnJrbHVuZA==?= says...
>
>Lars Ivar Igesund wrote:
>
>>>IUP is a neat and slim toolkit, even if it is somewhat lowlevel
>>>and only does Motif (beyond Windows) at the moment (not GTK/Mac)
>> 
>> According to Roberto's blog, he is actually on his way to make a Qt backend, even got a window up.
>
>Well, even I got a window up in a Mac driver of IUP, before I stopped. :-)

Hey, I got resizing and the "ACTION" callback, too!

>But the newer (Mac OS X 10.3+) UI system should be *easier* to write to,
>as it now has a view hierarchy that the old system (OS 9 / 10.1) didn't.

The Qt code is so much cleaner than the Motif backend it's not even funny. I expect the same thing would happen when switching to the new mac toolkits.

>One is table-driven and one is OOP, but they're both minimalistic...

A OO D wrapper around IUP should be rather simple to implement. Sure, you end up having more layers than the average cake:

Carbon->Qt->IUP->DIUP->OO wrapper

or

X11->Qt->IUP->DIUP->OO wrapper

>Which has the positive side-effect of them being a lot smaller, too.

Yup. I guesstimate the Qt backend to about 2KLOC which is very little when it comes to toolkits.

>When compared with the big ones like SWT, Qt, or wxWidgets, I mean ? (Looking at the newsgroup and forum, it seemed DWT grinded to a halt)
>
>And it's possible to use the X11 versions on the Mac, while gathering resources for true / native ports. OpenOffice does this, for instance.

At my current rate, if I can keep up the interest for about a week there should be a working IUP/Qt. Then again, that's a pretty big IF!

John Reimer wrote:
<snip>
> I'm not sure why Stewart suddenly felt obligated to post this.  This isn't Usenet.

What's that to do with anything?  I can't see how this nullifies a single raison d'etre of Usenetiquette.

> I saw no problems with your postings.
> 
> It's strange to watch how people start making decisions about how the newsgroup is to be run (for the most part, I haven't seen much of that here over the years: people have been quite relaxed about the thing). This newsgroup has no moderation or authority to control it, as far as I see beyond the responses of the community itself.  Not to say that it doesn't need such control, but that authority hasn't been given to anybody here in particular, let alone Stewart.  So I suggest you not worry about his post until some official word states that he is given a special moderation task for this newsgroup (or the members start backing up his request).

Generally, people who post advice on how to post to newsgroups don't claim any special authority to do so.  They simply pass on guidance that has grown out of both experience and common sense, and which is accepted by most of the more knowledgeable and experienced newsgroup users.

> Sorry Stewart, I don't want to annoy you, but you seem overly officious here.  You come across just as abrasive and abrupt as you might have accused Matthew of some time ago.
<snip>

Well, I don't mean to be abrasive or abrupt, just helpful.

Stewart.

Stewart Gordon wrote:
> John Reimer wrote:
> <snip>
>> I'm not sure why Stewart suddenly felt obligated to post this.  This isn't Usenet.
> 
> What's that to do with anything?  I can't see how this nullifies a single raison d'etre of Usenetiquette.
> 
>> I saw no problems with your postings.
>>
>> It's strange to watch how people start making decisions about how the newsgroup is to be run (for the most part, I haven't seen much of that here over the years: people have been quite relaxed about the thing). This newsgroup has no moderation or authority to control it, as far as I see beyond the responses of the community itself.  Not to say that it doesn't need such control, but that authority hasn't been given to anybody here in particular, let alone Stewart.  So I suggest you not worry about his post until some official word states that he is given a special moderation task for this newsgroup (or the members start backing up his request).
> 
> Generally, people who post advice on how to post to newsgroups don't claim any special authority to do so.  They simply pass on guidance that has grown out of both experience and common sense, and which is accepted by most of the more knowledgeable and experienced newsgroup users.
> 
>> Sorry Stewart, I don't want to annoy you, but you seem overly officious here.  You come across just as abrasive and abrupt as you might have accused Matthew of some time ago.
> <snip>
> 
> Well, I don't mean to be abrasive or abrupt, just helpful.
> 
> Stewart.


Okay... that's good to hear! :)

-JJR

Roberto Alsina wrote:

>>Well, even I got a window up in a Mac driver of IUP, before I stopped.
>>:-)
> 
> Hey, I got resizing and the "ACTION" callback, too!

And it's only been a couple of days, right ?

>>Which has the positive side-effect of them being a lot smaller, too.
> 
> Yup. I guesstimate the Qt backend to about 2KLOC which is very little
> when it comes to toolkits.

Almost makes me take another shot at it...

At least to see how much work it would be to
make it run with the new Carbon and Lua 5.1 ?

--anders