On Saturday, 7 September 2013 at 19:05:03 UTC, 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?

It would be great.

On Sat, 2013-09-07 at 21:55 +0200, Peter Alexander wrote:
> On Saturday, 7 September 2013 at 19:39:21 UTC, Russel Winder wrote:
> > Sadly, Visual Studio is a huge player in the game. Make the connection :-)
> 
> Why sadly? It's a fantastic product.

Because it is Windows only and I have no capability of running Windows.

-- 
Russel. ============================================================================= Dr Russel Winder      t: +44 20 7585 2200   voip: sip:russel.winder@ekiga.net 41 Buckmaster Road    m: +44 7770 465 077   xmpp: russel@winder.org.uk London SW11 1EN, UK   w: www.russel.org.uk  skype: russel_winder

On Saturday, 7 September 2013 at 20:02:37 UTC, Paulo Pinto wrote:
> Am 07.09.2013 21:55, schrieb Peter Alexander:
>> On Saturday, 7 September 2013 at 19:39:21 UTC, Russel Winder wrote:
>>> Sadly, Visual Studio is a huge player in the game. Make the
>>> connection :-)
>>
>> Why sadly? It's a fantastic product.
>
> The only thing I don't like is the reliance on Visual Assist and ReSharper for refactoring features that other IDEs offer out of the box.
>
> --
> Paulo

I'm both pro and against it.

Pro because VisualD seems to be (Pardon me, I don't work on Windoze and didn't work with it but trust Windoze D users opinion on that) an excellent solution and supporting nicely what seems to be *the* IDE in Windoze world.

Against because we need a solution for *all* major platforms (Lx32, Lx64, *BSD, apple, w32,w64) and I'm worried that this resolution here might lead to a "So, we *do* have an IDE. Case closed" attitude.

Kudos anyway to Rainer though for his important work.

A+ -R

Am 07.09.2013 23:57, schrieb Ramon:> On Saturday, 7 September 2013 at 20:02:37 UTC, Paulo Pinto wrote:
>> Am 07.09.2013 21:55, schrieb Peter Alexander:
>>> On Saturday, 7 September 2013 at 19:39:21 UTC, Russel Winder wrote:
>>>> Sadly, Visual Studio is a huge player in the game. Make the
>>>> connection :-)
>>>
>>> Why sadly? It's a fantastic product.
>>
>> The only thing I don't like is the reliance on Visual Assist and
>> ReSharper for refactoring features that other IDEs offer out of the box.
>>
>> --
>> Paulo
>
> I'm both pro and against it.
>
> Pro because VisualD seems to be (Pardon me, I don't work on Windoze and
> didn't work with it but trust Windoze D users opinion on that) an
> excellent solution and supporting nicely what seems to be *the* IDE in
> Windoze world.
>
> Against because we need a solution for *all* major platforms (Lx32,
> Lx64, *BSD, apple, w32,w64) and I'm worried that this resolution here
> might lead to a "So, we *do* have an IDE. Case closed" attitude.
>
> Kudos anyway to Rainer though for his important work.
>
> A+ -R

Well, if you want a production quality multi-platform IDE the only options are InteliJ and Eclipse, both of which are not that well received by most C and C++ guys. The target audience for D.

That is my humble opinion, regarding the type of tooling I expect from
an IDE.

--
Paulo

On 07/09/13 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?

Yes, absolutely.  Visual Studio is one of the most important software development tools out there and having a seamless D experience with it will be a great asset.  VisualD should definitely be given this kind of endorsement and focus.

On 08/09/13 00:35, Paulo Pinto wrote:
> Well, if you want a production quality multi-platform IDE the only options are
> InteliJ and Eclipse, both of which are not that well received by most C and C++
> guys. The target audience for D.
>
> That is my humble opinion, regarding the type of tooling I expect from
> an IDE.

For a cross-platform IDE, I can't say I have that much experience, but I'd be inclined to give Qt Creator some serious consideration.  Seemed nice in and of itself, it's properly cross-platform -- if I was writing much C/C++ these days I'd probably be using it.

I'm not sure how easy it is to write plugins for other languages and compilers, but I think it'd be worth looking into.

Am 08.09.2013 00:50, schrieb Joseph Rushton Wakeling:
> On 08/09/13 00:35, Paulo Pinto wrote:
>> Well, if you want a production quality multi-platform IDE the only
>> options are
>> InteliJ and Eclipse, both of which are not that well received by most
>> C and C++
>> guys. The target audience for D.
>>
>> That is my humble opinion, regarding the type of tooling I expect from
>> an IDE.
>
> For a cross-platform IDE, I can't say I have that much experience, but
> I'd be inclined to give Qt Creator some serious consideration.  Seemed
> nice in and of itself, it's properly cross-platform -- if I was writing
> much C/C++ these days I'd probably be using it.
>
> I'm not sure how easy it is to write plugins for other languages and
> compilers, but I think it'd be worth looking into.

QtCreator is quite good, actually. I forgot to mention it.

--
Paulo

On Saturday, 7 September 2013 at 22:50:45 UTC, Joseph Rushton Wakeling wrote:
> On 08/09/13 00:35, Paulo Pinto wrote:
>> Well, if you want a production quality multi-platform IDE the only options are
>> InteliJ and Eclipse, both of which are not that well received by most C and C++
>> guys. The target audience for D.
>>
>> That is my humble opinion, regarding the type of tooling I expect from
>> an IDE.
>
> For a cross-platform IDE, I can't say I have that much experience, but I'd be inclined to give Qt Creator some serious consideration.  Seemed nice in and of itself, it's properly cross-platform -- if I was writing much C/C++ these days I'd probably be using it.
>
> I'm not sure how easy it is to write plugins for other languages and compilers, but I think it'd be worth looking into.

I had try, it seems feasible, but it's an huge amount of work.
It's preferable to let contributors choose for which IDE they want add D support.
If you want try with QtCreator is a good thing, but it will certainly best to concentrate effort on projects that are already usable.

I hope to see MonoD on github/d-programming-language too if it's the case of VisualD.

On 9/7/2013 4:22 PM, Flamaros wrote:
> I hope to see MonoD on github/d-programming-language too if it's the case of
> VisualD.

MonoD is definitely a contender for that. But let's take a moment to digest VisualD before we overreach!

On 08/09/13 01:22, Flamaros wrote:
> I had try, it seems feasible, but it's an huge amount of work.
> It's preferable to let contributors choose for which IDE they want add D support.
> If you want try with QtCreator is a good thing, but it will certainly best to
> concentrate effort on projects that are already usable.

That's fair enough, but it does seem like a good strategic choice if a major target audience is C/C++ users.

I did actually try using it already, just as a glorified text editor, to see how it'd cope with D syntax -- pretty well, apart from not highlighting or understanding indentation rules with respect to non-C++ stuff like foreach.

I didn't personally warm to MonoDevelop, but to be fair, I didn't give it much of a go.  Maybe I'll reinstall it some time and see how it works out.

> I hope to see MonoD on github/d-programming-language too if it's the case of
> VisualD.

Yes, I think that's a good plan.  I rather hope that all the major IDEs will be supported as first-class citizens in the long run.