On Tuesday, 30 July 2013 at 08:00:15 UTC, eles wrote:
> On Tuesday, 30 July 2013 at 05:46:42 UTC, Trvhgoy wrote:
>> On Tuesday, 30 July 2013 at 03:49:36 UTC, evilrat wrote:
>>> On Monday, 29 July 2013 at 22:19:35 UTC, Chris wrote:
>
>> Two important things that I miss in D are a D UI, as you said,
>
> Choice of a good toolkit is a long discussion.
>
> See this thread: http://forum.dlang.org/thread/vtaufckbpdkpuxyztyoi@forum.dlang.org
>
> and my own suggestion therein:
>
> http://forum.dlang.org/thread/vtaufckbpdkpuxyztyoi@forum.dlang.org?page=10#post-ksirfxsiejlweyhomwmh:40forum.dlang.org
>
> that is, the FOX toolkit (http://fox-toolkit.org/goals.html).
>
> AFAICT, the choice to take SWT (or other famous toolkit) and fork it, then port it to D (such as DWT is), is not the best option. For a simple reason. The D port will always be compared against the original toolkit, which will be almost always more advanced and a moving target. People tend to go with the brand, especially if the brand is well-known. It is a marketing paradigm.
>
> OTOH, a good, but rather anonymous toolkit will be more appropriate, at least for the following reasons:
>
> - a D-ported version of it won't be shaded by the original
> - evolution is slower, so not a fast-moving target
> - the team behind that toolkit will be more than glad to help, as their toolkit will gain in popularity, and could even be converted to D-development (instead of C or C++ or whatever)
>
>> and a really good IDE (written in D, stand alone, cross-plattform, open source, modern features and so on).
>
> Before going into that, the toolkit should be chosen. And, obviously, the IDE should be written with the help of that toolkit. It will not be just a useful tool, but also a showroom for the toolkit (just like Borland's IDEs were for TurboVision and, later, OWL).

I'm still dreaming of a pure D UI. But for now interfacing to C seems to be the only option / viable solution. I would recommend pure C frameworks such as Gtk or IUP. So far GtkD has worked for me on Linux. It is a mature framework and well documented. Also it features Glade Interface Designer (no need to code the layout by hand which is - IMO - a must have feature nowadays).

SWT / DWT is almost impossible to maintain for a small group. SWT was and is a 24/7 nightmare for developers, and they do it 24/7. SWT is a moving target, I agree, but so is D itself (deprecated features, new features etc.). So you have two moving targets to keep in sync with each other.

On Tuesday, 30 July 2013 at 09:56:46 UTC, Chris wrote:
> On Tuesday, 30 July 2013 at 08:00:15 UTC, eles wrote:
>> On Tuesday, 30 July 2013 at 05:46:42 UTC, Trvhgoy wrote:
>>> On Tuesday, 30 July 2013 at 03:49:36 UTC, evilrat wrote:
>>>> On Monday, 29 July 2013 at 22:19:35 UTC, Chris wrote:
>>
> I'm still dreaming of a pure D UI. But for now interfacing to C

Hey, I was suggesting to re-write FOX tk in D, not to bind to it (besides, it is C++).

>> I'm still dreaming of a pure D UI. But for now interfacing to C
>
> Hey, I was suggesting to re-write FOX tk in D, not to bind to it (besides, it is C++).

Of course, something written in D, that would be really fantastic. But for now, we only have C/bindings solutions, if we need a UI toolkit. Or am I mistaken here?

On Tuesday, 30 July 2013 at 12:31:26 UTC, Chris wrote:
>
> we need a UI toolkit. Or am I mistaken here?

Unfortunately, you are not mistaken. AFAIK, DWT was the sole project that actually tried to go that way.

On Tuesday, 30 July 2013 at 15:29:44 UTC, eles wrote:
> On Tuesday, 30 July 2013 at 12:31:26 UTC, Chris wrote:
>>
>> we need a UI toolkit. Or am I mistaken here?
>
> Unfortunately, you are not mistaken. AFAIK, DWT was the sole project that actually tried to go that way.

DWT is way too big for a small community like the D community. SWT had the Eclipse guys SWeaTing for a long time (pardon the eye-pun). "Moving target" is right.

On Tuesday, 30 July 2013 at 08:00:15 UTC, eles wrote:
> On Tuesday, 30 July 2013 at 05:46:42 UTC, Trvhgoy wrote:
>> On Tuesday, 30 July 2013 at 03:49:36 UTC, evilrat wrote:
>>> On Monday, 29 July 2013 at 22:19:35 UTC, Chris wrote:
>
>> Two important things that I miss in D are a D UI, as you said,
>
> Choice of a good toolkit is a long discussion.
>
> See this thread: http://forum.dlang.org/thread/vtaufckbpdkpuxyztyoi@forum.dlang.org
>
> and my own suggestion therein:
>
> http://forum.dlang.org/thread/vtaufckbpdkpuxyztyoi@forum.dlang.org?page=10#post-ksirfxsiejlweyhomwmh:40forum.dlang.org
>
> that is, the FOX toolkit (http://fox-toolkit.org/goals.html).
>
> AFAICT, the choice to take SWT (or other famous toolkit) and fork it, then port it to D (such as DWT is), is not the best option. For a simple reason. The D port will always be compared against the original toolkit, which will be almost always more advanced and a moving target. People tend to go with the brand, especially if the brand is well-known. It is a marketing paradigm.
>
> OTOH, a good, but rather anonymous toolkit will be more appropriate, at least for the following reasons:
>
> - a D-ported version of it won't be shaded by the original
> - evolution is slower, so not a fast-moving target
> - the team behind that toolkit will be more than glad to help, as their toolkit will gain in popularity, and could even be converted to D-development (instead of C or C++ or whatever)
>
>> and a really good IDE (written in D, stand alone, cross-plattform, open source, modern features and so on).
>
> Before going into that, the toolkit should be chosen. And, obviously, the IDE should be written with the help of that toolkit. It will not be just a useful tool, but also a showroom for the toolkit (just like Borland's IDEs were for TurboVision and, later, OWL).

I started to reading the posted thread. Very interesting.
Now I think the D-Community really needs a solid UI Toolkit first and then a IDE developed with this Toolkit, as you said.

In my opinion a software rendered approach would be very fine. Where you can define the layout with a markup language like XAML or XUL for example and the styling with a CSS-like definition.

I've planned to make some further research on this topic.

Thanks for all replys!

On Wednesday, 31 July 2013 at 05:32:49 UTC, Trvhgoy wrote:

>
> In my opinion a software rendered approach would be very fine. Where you can define the layout with a markup language like XAML or XUL for example and the styling with a CSS-like definition.
>

Have you seen Harmonia[1]? It was implemented along those lines. It was abandoned long ago, but it might be a good place to start.

[1] http://harmonia.terrainformatica.com/doku.php

On Wednesday, 31 July 2013 at 08:51:47 UTC, Mike Parker wrote:
> On Wednesday, 31 July 2013 at 05:32:49 UTC, Trvhgoy wrote:
>
>>
>> In my opinion a software rendered approach would be very fine. Where you can define the layout with a markup language like XAML or XUL for example and the styling with a CSS-like definition.
>>
>
> Have you seen Harmonia[1]? It was implemented along those lines. It was abandoned long ago, but it might be a good place to start.
>
> [1] http://harmonia.terrainformatica.com/doku.php

I have seen Harmonia. IMO, XML (or whatever markup language) and CSS are a good solution. It gives you a lot of freedom. Also, a UI tool like Glade or Interface Builder is indispensible these days. I don't want to acutally code the basic behavior and exact position of a widget. An utter waste of time.

JavaFX and Scene Builder are another example of markup + CSS.

On Wednesday, 31 July 2013 at 09:30:08 UTC, Chris wrote:
> On Wednesday, 31 July 2013 at 08:51:47 UTC, Mike Parker wrote:
>> On Wednesday, 31 July 2013 at 05:32:49 UTC, Trvhgoy wrote:
>>
>>>
>>> In my opinion a software rendered approach would be very fine. Where you can define the layout with a markup language like XAML or XUL for example and the styling with a CSS-like definition.
>>>
>>
>> Have you seen Harmonia[1]? It was implemented along those lines. It was abandoned long ago, but it might be a good place to start.
>>
>> [1] http://harmonia.terrainformatica.com/doku.php

Thanks for the hint!
I have not known Harmonia before and I think your right, it would be a good place to start at least for research. :)

> I have seen Harmonia. IMO, XML (or whatever markup language) and CSS are a good solution. It gives you a lot of freedom. Also, a UI tool like Glade or Interface Builder is indispensible these days. I don't want to acutally code the basic behavior and exact position of a widget. An utter waste of time.
>
> JavaFX and Scene Builder are another example of markup + CSS.

Yes, I'm with you. A UI designer would be a necessary tool to get somebody to work with the toolkit.

On Monday, 29 July 2013 at 09:47:09 UTC, Trvhgoy wrote:
> Hello,
> is there somebody who works on an open source integrated
> developement environment written in D?
> I have heared of Poseiden, but nobody works actively on it, right?
>
> Regards Trvhgoy

I was actually going to start work on a D IDE pretty soon. I just needed to wrap up some other projects first. I was going to use gtkD as the GUI system for it though. Creating a new UI for D would be a pretty huge undertaking!