On 09/09/13 21:26, Flamaros wrote:
> Personally I think that phobos contains some parts that are in Qt base, so a
> wrapper isn't a perfect solution for D. It's certainly the fastest way to extend
> the D framework and add a GUI library, but Qt phylosophy doesn't match perfectly
> with D. Just take a look to moc, in D it's possible and preferable to do without
> it.
>
> That why we started DQuick to create a complete adaption of QtQuick to D, this
> is much hard to do but DQuick has the potential to be much more suitable for D.

I've just had a read through your DQuick announcement thread.  It looks like a really nice project -- I wish you a lot of success with this.

Now, that said, while Qt may have some issues with respect to D, supporting it isn't just a matter of wanting a GUI solution.  It's not just a graphical toolkit -- it's THE most important cross-platform toolkit, and has been chosen as a first-class SDK component by various platforms.  I'd say that makes good and up-to-date QtD bindings a very important strategic goal.

On 07.09.2013 21:04, Walter Bright wrote:
> Recent threads here have made it pretty clear that VisualD is a critical
> piece of D infrastructure. (VisualD integrated D usage into Microsoft
> Visual Studio.)
>
> Andrei, myself and Rainer (VisualD's champion) are all in agreement on
> this.
>
> What do you think?


Thanks everyone for supporting this move. I have just transferred the repository to the D-Programming-Language organization and it can now be found at https://github.com/D-Programming-Language/visuald

I'm planning to move the issues from the dsource bug database to bugzilla. Does anyone have experience with converting trac issues to bugzilla? There are currently 60 open reports (half of them enhancement requests), so it should also be possible to do this manually.

The documentation and downloads are also going to move to dlang.org, but until this is sorted out, I'll leave it at dsource.org.

If you want to get your hands dirty and try building Visual D yourself, see http://www.dsource.org/projects/visuald/wiki/Build_from_source. There is also a "build" project in the solution to help with the pre-compilation-steps.

Please note, that the current github HEAD compiler has a bad bug when it comes to COM interfaces, but there is already a pull to the rescue (https://github.com/D-Programming-Language/dmd/pull/2537). Using the released dmd 2.063 should work. The releases are built with a patched compiler and runtime to support precise garbage collection, though.

Rainer

On Tuesday, 10 September 2013 at 06:18:16 UTC, Joseph Rushton Wakeling wrote:
> On 09/09/13 21:26, Flamaros wrote:
>> Personally I think that phobos contains some parts that are in Qt base, so a
>> wrapper isn't a perfect solution for D. It's certainly the fastest way to extend
>> the D framework and add a GUI library, but Qt phylosophy doesn't match perfectly
>> with D. Just take a look to moc, in D it's possible and preferable to do without
>> it.
>>
>> That why we started DQuick to create a complete adaption of QtQuick to D, this
>> is much hard to do but DQuick has the potential to be much more suitable for D.
>
> I've just had a read through your DQuick announcement thread.  It looks like a really nice project -- I wish you a lot of success with this.
>
> Now, that said, while Qt may have some issues with respect to D, supporting it isn't just a matter of wanting a GUI solution.
>  It's not just a graphical toolkit -- it's THE most important cross-platform toolkit, and has been chosen as a first-class SDK component by various platforms.  I'd say that makes good and up-to-date QtD bindings a very important strategic goal.

All parts of Qt that are non about GUI, like strings, io, network, regexp,... are or certainly will be in phobos. So for D applications started from ground I don't really see the benefits.
But if D is compatible with Qt/C++ existing code, it will be great win. In this case QtD is clearly a strategic goal.

On Monday, 9 September 2013 at 16:12:00 UTC, Brian Rogoff wrote:
> On Sunday, 8 September 2013 at 11:48:06 UTC, Paulo Pinto wrote:
>> Am 08.09.2013 13:24, schrieb Russel Winder:
>>> On Sun, 2013-09-08 at 00:35 +0200, Paulo Pinto wrote:
>>> […]
>> To make it more clear, the ML family of languages, Pascal family of
>> languages, even JVM and .NET environments have native compilers available. You just have to look for them.
>
> IMO, D has more potential as a native code compilation target than Java, C#, and ML, at least in theory, because I should be able to control and even disable garbage collection. So, even users of managed languages may want to examine D.
>
> -- Brian

I really hate the term managed language coined by Microsoft with
.NET's introduction.

What makes a language managed?

A GC? Then D is also managed.

Compiling to a VM? Then Java is native when I use the Excelsior JET compiler.

Strong typing? Then Ada is managed.

One type of consulting projects we do is port C++ code to .NET/JVM environments.

I can assure that given the proper expertise how to code in a GC friendly way, GC is no a bottleneck than having to write special tuned versions of malloc()/free().

In D's case it is currently an issue, given that the current implementation is not as advanced as what is available in other runtimes.

--
Paulo

On 2013-09-09 12:47, Nick Sabalausky wrote:

> Huh? What are you talking about? I'm not grouping anyone with anything.
> When non-Windows users go saying things like "Windoze" or "M$" or
> anything like that, it makes non-Windows users look bad. Makes it a lot
> easier for people to be dismissive of OSS (or anything non-MS) when
> we've trained them to associate it with immaturity like that.

Sorry, I might have misunderstood what you wrote.

-- 
/Jacob Carlborg

On 2013-09-09 17:16, Walter Bright wrote:

> No. I just added the component.

Do we have an API for the D bugzilla so we can easily migrate the issues?

-- 
/Jacob Carlborg

On 9/10/2013 12:44 AM, Jacob Carlborg wrote:
> On 2013-09-09 17:16, Walter Bright wrote:
>
>> No. I just added the component.
>
> Do we have an API for the D bugzilla so we can easily migrate the issues?

Rainer is working on it, as he writes elsewhere in this thread.

On 2013-09-10 08:49, Rainer Schuetze wrote:

> I'm planning to move the issues from the dsource bug database to
> bugzilla. Does anyone have experience with converting trac issues to
> bugzilla? There are currently 60 open reports (half of them enhancement
> requests), so it should also be possible to do this manually.

Bugzilla has an REST API:

https://wiki.mozilla.org/Bugzilla:REST_API

Don't know if the D bugzilla has that enabled.

-- 
/Jacob Carlborg

On 2013-09-10 09:45, Walter Bright wrote:

> Rainer is working on it, as he writes elsewhere in this thread.

Rainer was asking if anyone have experience with migrating Trac issues to bugzilla. Bugzilla does have an API. The question is it enabled for the D bugzilla.

-- 
/Jacob Carlborg

On 9/10/2013 1:02 AM, Jacob Carlborg wrote:
> Rainer was asking if anyone have experience with migrating Trac issues to
> bugzilla. Bugzilla does have an API. The question is it enabled for the D bugzilla.

I don't know. Brad Roberts runs Bugzilla. I'll forward this to him.