On Sunday, 8 September 2013 at 22:37:00 UTC, Ramon wrote:
> On Sunday, 8 September 2013 at 21:47:59 UTC, Andrej Mitrovic wrote:
>> On 9/8/13, Ramon <spam@thanks.no> wrote:
>>> Fox and fltk are
>>> nice little thingies but not up to (todays) par lacking even
>>> functionality like printing.
>>
>> Printing seems like something that should be in a separate library,
>> and maybe the GUI library would provide a nice interface over its
>> functionality. I've no idea, but are there no such cross-platform
>> libraries around?
>
> For some reason, probably to follow the situation on Windoze, printing is considered to belong to or at least to be very tightly coupled with the GUI. Technically speaking MS has solved printing by drawing to a "special canvas", which is somewhat unfortunate but actually not that bad conceptionally.
>
> In part the problem is also to do with linux going another way that is smart, too, by somewhat decoupling printing and going for postcript.
>

Postscript is/was the industry standard, so of course Linux, Unix, FreeBSD and most other OSs support it, including windows.

The "special canvas" in windows is really just another GDI render target. Cairo works in a similar way, producing device independent output that can then be used with different renderer targets, including Postscript, PDF, etc.

G.

On Sep 8, 2013 11:49 PM, "Joseph Rushton Wakeling" < joseph.wakeling@webdrake.net> wrote:
>
> On 08/09/13 23:21, Iain Buclaw wrote:
>>
>> From an ethical viewpoint, I think most of it is FUD that still lingers from back when there was confusion over what Microsoft was going to do C# (there was for a long time fear that it would drive all free C# implementations underground).  But all that mist has been cleared for a while, and I don't believe this represents the overall view of users/developers - except for those who are still stuck in 2008 mindset.
>
>
> I think there was a legit fear that if C# got a sufficient foothold in
the Linux ecosystem, it'd provide a means for Microsoft to take everyone down via patent lawsuits.  It's still theoretically a risk, but I think strategically Microsoft seems to have reconsidered that approach.
>

Both the C# specification ( http://www.ecma-international.org/publications/standards/Ecma-334.htm ) and the common language infrastructure (CLI)  ( http://www.ecma-international.org/publications/standards/Ecma-335.htm ) have been standardised for some time now, so that aspect is safe from Microsoft.   It is worth noting that not all C# modules are covered by CLI - such as the cryptography library.

Regards
-- 
Iain Buclaw

*(p < e ? p++ : p) = (c & 0x0f) + '0';

On 09/09/13 02:03, Iain Buclaw wrote:
> Both the C# specification (
> http://www.ecma-international.org/publications/standards/Ecma-334.htm ) and the
> common language infrastructure (CLI)  (
> http://www.ecma-international.org/publications/standards/Ecma-335.htm ) have
> been standardised for some time now, so that aspect is safe from Microsoft.   It
> is worth noting that not all C# modules are covered by CLI - such as the
> cryptography library.

Given recent revelations, I'm not sure that crypto library should be used anyway ... :-)

On 8 September 2013 05:04, Walter Bright <newshound2@digitalmars.com> 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?
>

How about the bugs?
When I made the suggestion, other the obvious endorsement for the project,
I imagined the most significant outcome would be making Visual-D's bug's
first-class bugs as well.
Giving good visibility of IDE bugs to all contributors gives the whole
community a good sense of the health of this aspect of the ecosystem, even
of they don't contribute to the IDE integration themselves...

On Mon, Sep 09, 2013 at 02:32:40PM +1000, Manu wrote:
> On 8 September 2013 05:04, Walter Bright <newshound2@digitalmars.com> 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?
> >
> 
> How about the bugs?
> When I made the suggestion, other the obvious endorsement for the
> project, I imagined the most significant outcome would be making
> Visual-D's bug's first-class bugs as well.
> Giving good visibility of IDE bugs to all contributors gives the whole
> community a good sense of the health of this aspect of the ecosystem,
> even of they don't contribute to the IDE integration themselves...

Good point. Should we integrate the bugs into the current D bugtracker as well? It would seem counterproductive to have the repo under the "official" dlang github organization yet have two separate bug trackers.


T

-- 
There is no gravity. The earth sucks.

On 9 September 2013 14:32, Manu <turkeyman@gmail.com> wrote:

> On 8 September 2013 05:04, Walter Bright <newshound2@digitalmars.com>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?
>>
>
> How about the bugs?
> When I made the suggestion, other the obvious endorsement for the project,
> I imagined the most significant outcome would be making Visual-D's bug's
> first-class bugs as well.
> Giving good visibility of IDE bugs to all contributors gives the whole
> community a good sense of the health of this aspect of the ecosystem, even
> of they don't contribute to the IDE integration themselves...
>

>_< .. auto-complete on phones!

On 9/8/13 9:32 PM, Manu wrote:
> On 8 September 2013 05:04, Walter Bright <newshound2@digitalmars.com
> <mailto:newshound2@digitalmars.com>> 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?
>
>
> How about the bugs?
> When I made the suggestion, other the obvious endorsement for the
> project, I imagined the most significant outcome would be making
> Visual-D's bug's first-class bugs as well.
> Giving good visibility of IDE bugs to all contributors gives the whole
> community a good sense of the health of this aspect of the ecosystem,
> even of they don't contribute to the IDE integration themselves...

I think we should use the D mainline bug flow for VisualD, effectively vaulting VisualD into a first-class component of the D language.

This opens the door to other projects as well - e.g. emacs and vim integration helpers.


Andrei

Good idea!

What about other useful projects? I know that a official lexer was discussed some time ago. What about DCD? Should ex VisualD use software like DCD if both are on the dlang GitHub?

Should we make "pull requests"/empty repos. for other nice to have software?

On Monday, September 09, 2013 07:41:44 Volcz wrote:
> Good idea!
> 
> What about other useful projects? I know that a official lexer was discussed some time ago. What about DCD? Should ex VisualD use software like DCD if both are on the dlang GitHub?

The plan is to integrate a full lexer and parser into Phobos (and hopefully eventually have dmd use those sometime after the front-end has been converted to D). So, I wouldn't expect there to be any separate projects for those to be moved into github/d-programming-language.

I also don't think that we should rush and try and shove a bunch of projects in the official D github org. If it makes sense to put something there, then we should put something there, but IMHO it needs to actually have a good reason to be official, not just because it's useful.

- Jonathan M Davis

On 9 September 2013 15:05, Andrei Alexandrescu < SeeWebsiteForEmail@erdani.org> wrote:

> On 9/8/13 9:32 PM, Manu wrote:
>
>> On 8 September 2013 05:04, Walter Bright <newshound2@digitalmars.com <mailto:newshound2@**digitalmars.com <newshound2@digitalmars.com>>> 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?
>>
>>
>> How about the bugs?
>> When I made the suggestion, other the obvious endorsement for the
>> project, I imagined the most significant outcome would be making
>> Visual-D's bug's first-class bugs as well.
>> Giving good visibility of IDE bugs to all contributors gives the whole
>> community a good sense of the health of this aspect of the ecosystem,
>> even of they don't contribute to the IDE integration themselves...
>>
>
> I think we should use the D mainline bug flow for VisualD, effectively vaulting VisualD into a first-class component of the D language.
>
> This opens the door to other projects as well - e.g. emacs and vim integration helpers.


Perfect! I'm super happy you agree with me for once! :)