Some applications that use Chromium Embedded:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chromium_Embedded_Framework#Applications_using_CEF

On Monday, 9 March 2015 at 12:29:54 UTC, Ola Fosheim Grøstad wrote:
> Some applications that use Chromium Embedded:
>
> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chromium_Embedded_Framework#Applications_using_CEF

I don't use any of them and Github for Windows was done in WPF last time I checked, how come it is listed there?

--
Paulo

On Friday, 6 March 2015 at 06:02:17 UTC, Taylor Hillegeist wrote:
> So I have played with a few GUI libraries with bindings available through D. Personally I find that it seems like there is alot of effort being put forth on GUI projects.
>
> It is my experience that most project's fail or die, not because of lack of effort but lack of specification, many people start projects thinking, can i make it do this? how about this? and a project is born! but soon interest is lost and the project dies. But specification can lead to projects that become useful earlier, more stable, and live longer happier lives.
>
> At this point i think the following features are the most useful.
>
> -Ease of setup-
> dub integration is awesome, without it things are more difficult. This has very little to do with the actual toolkit.
>
> -Minimal dependencies-
> Personally If i can statically link a toolkit to my GUI and it has zero dependencies outside of the OS typically install. I am very happy. really the less that can be messed with the better.
>
> best in my opinion: DWT MiniGUI DGUI at least for windows.
>
> -Rock Solid Stable-
> So when I do the hello world application I resize the window push the buttons and do pretty normal things. But on some libraries I get weird stuff going on sometimes the window even becomes invisible..... scary.
>
> best in my opinion: GTKD TKD
>
> -GUI EDITOR/BUILDER-
> Good- You can edit a static layout
> Better- you can edit a layout and re-size the window layout responds
> Best- you can edit the actual window in real time without recompile.
>
> Good- You have a pallet of basic widgets that you can place.
> Better- You have a pallet of basic widgets + custom widgets that you can edit.
> Best- You have the above + a database were people can share widgets :)
>
> -Widgets-
> Personally I think that all layout items like HBar should be children of widget that way i can make more modular component, but that's just my opinion.
>
> -Data Binding-
> Most of the time I use that data a widget represents and much less often the events they produce.
>
> -Ease of Use-
> Your tookits should work for you... not the other way round.
>
> -layout-
> I have seen some schemes like Winforms Dock,javaFX HBar, HTML5's float/static/absolute/realitive... Idk what seems the most freindly... HTML5/css seems the most complex. I have a dream H/VBar + align/distribution/wrap options.
>
> I know some of these are RAD things. I don't have an opinion on thread safe guis. personally I would like to see a GUI tookit that the community said... use X it is just the way to go for most things.

Click-able buttons A GUI toolkit should have...Click-able buttons rocks !

More seriously, one of the problem which explains why there no well-established GUI library around is the lack of serialization, component streaming solution. Currently there is no standard way in D to save and reload a class instance or a struct.

On Monday, 9 March 2015 at 08:13:47 UTC, Ola Fosheim Grøstad wrote:
> Flexibility is also important for creating good UIs. Complex applications never reuse much from existing GUIs, they create their own for all the critical tasks.

They still mostly rely on existing functionality, and I wouldn't say it will be easier in HTML5. You will deal with all the same primitives, which of course will break with next update.

> HTML5 is an adopted agreed upon standard with backwards compatible enhancements that works cross platform.

Yet, web 2.0 technologies have only rudimentary notion of backward compatibility, all it breaks routinely.

On Tuesday, 10 March 2015 at 08:02:00 UTC, Kagamin wrote:
> Yet, web 2.0 technologies have only rudimentary notion of backward compatibility, all it breaks routinely.

No... there are sometimes regressions, but only for a few releases. It does not matter when you bundle the engine with the application.

Le 10/03/2015 11:16, "Ola Fosheim =?UTF-8?B?R3LDuHN0YWQi?= <ola.fosheim.grostad+dlang@gmail.com>" a écrit :
> On Tuesday, 10 March 2015 at 08:02:00 UTC, Kagamin wrote:
>> Yet, web 2.0 technologies have only rudimentary notion of backward
>> compatibility, all it breaks routinely.
>
> No... there are sometimes regressions, but only for a few releases. It
> does not matter when you bundle the engine with the application.

Personally I am totally against HTML/CSS. It's a pain to get a good presentation, and the way styles are applied is just to hard to follow don't forget the !important keyword in CSS.

Even with bootstrap I have difficulties to get results I want.


A year ago I start learn QML (http://doc.qt.io/qt-5/qtqml-index.html) for my job and it was difficult to understand the property binding paradigm, but after that you can do just what you want. And code is really simple and not as verbose as HTML for doing the same things.

On Wednesday, 11 March 2015 at 08:32:07 UTC, Xavier Bigand wrote:
> after that you can do just what you want. And code is really simple and not as verbose as HTML for doing the same things.

With web components you can create your own markup and encapsulate the implementation.

On Wednesday, 11 March 2015 at 10:50:44 UTC, Ola Fosheim Grøstad wrote:
> On Wednesday, 11 March 2015 at 08:32:07 UTC, Xavier Bigand wrote:
>> after that you can do just what you want. And code is really simple and not as verbose as HTML for doing the same things.
>
> With web components you can create your own markup and encapsulate the implementation.

There is no such thing as encapsulation.

The browser will just see a gigantic HTML page open to all sorts of side effects.

Unless they have gained a closed environment definition recently,

--
Paulo

On Wednesday, 11 March 2015 at 11:34:45 UTC, Paulo  Pinto wrote:
> Unless they have gained a closed environment definition recently,

They have:

http://www.w3.org/TR/shadow-dom/

Btw: this is a demo app using the tech:

https://polymer-topeka.appspot.com/

Not sure if it works well outside Chrome. I only use Chrome+Dart+Polymer with this tech.