On Wed, 06 Oct 2010 18:23:40 +0400, Andrei Alexandrescu <SeeWebsiteForEmail@erdani.org> wrote:

> On 10/6/10 1:29 CDT, Kagamin wrote:
>> sybrandy Wrote:
>>
>>> What would you rewrite in D?
>>
>> Phobos.
>
> The irony/joke is lost on me, so I'll bite: how do you mean that?
>
> Andrei

He emphasized on "rewrite" rather than on "D".

On 10/6/10 9:27 CDT, Denis Koroskin wrote:
> On Wed, 06 Oct 2010 18:23:40 +0400, Andrei Alexandrescu
> <SeeWebsiteForEmail@erdani.org> wrote:
>
>> On 10/6/10 1:29 CDT, Kagamin wrote:
>>> sybrandy Wrote:
>>>
>>>> What would you rewrite in D?
>>>
>>> Phobos.
>>
>> The irony/joke is lost on me, so I'll bite: how do you mean that?
>>
>> Andrei
>
> He emphasized on "rewrite" rather than on "D".

Oh, okay. Well it is funny. Thanks!

Andrei

Andrei Alexandrescu <SeeWebsiteForEmail@erdani.org> wrote in news:i8gpne $2o9r$1@digitalmars.com:

> I wouldn't spend much time on rewriting classic utilities in D. There's plenty to be done anew. One category of tools to be written in D are utilities aimed at D itself (parsers, analyzers, Thrift bindings, protocol buffers bindings, code for DB interface, etc.)
> 
> Andrei

If there are old standby's to be rewritten in D, my first choice would not be full programs (for the reasons you suggest).  But I might like to see some C++ or even Java libraries rewritten in D to make the more easily available or reliable.  wxWidgets, Qt, or SWT make for obvious choices. I'm not the only ones to whom these were obvious as the wxD, QtD, and DWT projects indicate.  Not that I want to take on such a project myself, but it's good to see others working on them.  (Well, wxD, and QtD are not translations, but oh well).

"JMRyan" <nospam@nospam.com> wrote in message news:i8ie7k$d1j$1@digitalmars.com...
> Andrei Alexandrescu <SeeWebsiteForEmail@erdani.org> wrote in news:i8gpne $2o9r$1@digitalmars.com:
>
>> I wouldn't spend much time on rewriting classic utilities in D. There's plenty to be done anew. One category of tools to be written in D are utilities aimed at D itself (parsers, analyzers, Thrift bindings, protocol buffers bindings, code for DB interface, etc.)
>>
>> Andrei
>
> If there are old standby's to be rewritten in D, my first choice would not be full programs (for the reasons you suggest).  But I might like to see some C++ or even Java libraries rewritten in D to make the more easily available or reliable.  wxWidgets, Qt, or SWT make for obvious choices. I'm not the only ones to whom these were obvious as the wxD, QtD, and DWT projects indicate.  Not that I want to take on such a project myself, but it's good to see others working on them.  (Well, wxD, and QtD are not translations, but oh well).

Yea, I've been thinking it would be nice to have, at the very least, an overly-simplified D interface to Qt, that at least worked, even if it wasn't as fully-fleshed-out and ideal as QtD was aiming to be. Just so D2 users could make cross-platform GUI apps without having to resort to GTK. I'm sure the GTKD devs did a fine job and all, so nothing against them, but frankly I think I'd rather go around beating up old ladies and baby seals than be the author of a GTK-based app.

Nick Sabalausky wrote:
>  I'd rather go around beating up old ladies and baby seals than be the author of a GTK-based app.
> 

because ... ?

On 06/10/10 22:26, Daniel Gibson wrote:
> Nick Sabalausky wrote:
>> I'd rather go around beating up old ladies and baby seals than be the
>> author of a GTK-based app.
>>
>
> because ... ?

If you'd used GTK you'd know ;D

-- 
Robert
http://octarineparrot.com/

"Robert Clipsham" <robert@octarineparrot.com> wrote in message news:i8ipl4$1tvc$1@digitalmars.com...
> On 06/10/10 22:26, Daniel Gibson wrote:
>> Nick Sabalausky wrote:
>>> I'd rather go around beating up old ladies and baby seals than be the author of a GTK-based app.
>>>
>>
>> because ... ?

I have a severe distate for non-native-GUI apps. (And even moreso when the result is a UI that's all big-n-chunky.)

>
> If you'd used GTK you'd know ;D
>

Heh, actually, I haven't used GTK. At least not from the programmer side (just the end-user side).

Nick Sabalausky schrieb:
> "Robert Clipsham" <robert@octarineparrot.com> wrote in message news:i8ipl4$1tvc$1@digitalmars.com...
>> On 06/10/10 22:26, Daniel Gibson wrote:
>>> Nick Sabalausky wrote:
>>>> I'd rather go around beating up old ladies and baby seals than be the
>>>> author of a GTK-based app.
>>>>
>>> because ... ?
> 
> I have a severe distate for non-native-GUI apps. (And even moreso when the result is a UI that's all big-n-chunky.)
> 

Ok, for me GTK is native because I use Linux and a GTK based desktop.
I know that there's a native GTK port for OSX/Quartz and I thought GTK had themes to look native on Windows?

If that isn't the case I do understand your objection.. I hate non native GUIs as well (java swing is particularly bad).

>> If you'd used GTK you'd know ;D
>>
> 
> Heh, actually, I haven't used GTK. At least not from the programmer side (just the end-user side).
> 

I have to admit that I don't have much experience with GUI programming (in general and GTK in particular) either.

"Daniel Gibson" <metalcaedes@gmail.com> wrote in message news:i8iqr3$22s6$5@digitalmars.com...
> Nick Sabalausky schrieb:
>> "Robert Clipsham" <robert@octarineparrot.com> wrote in message news:i8ipl4$1tvc$1@digitalmars.com...
>>> On 06/10/10 22:26, Daniel Gibson wrote:
>>>> Nick Sabalausky wrote:
>>>>> I'd rather go around beating up old ladies and baby seals than be the author of a GTK-based app.
>>>>>
>>>> because ... ?
>>
>> I have a severe distate for non-native-GUI apps. (And even moreso when the result is a UI that's all big-n-chunky.)
>>
>
> Ok, for me GTK is native because I use Linux and a GTK based desktop.
> I know that there's a native GTK port for OSX/Quartz and I thought GTK had
> themes to look native on Windows?
>

It does make a vague attempt to look native on Windows, and is FAR better in that regard than, say, Swing, Winamp, Iron/Chrome, or pretty much anything from Apple. But there's still rather noticable differences in both look (the chunkiness I mentioned, just as one example) and in feel (particulary if you're using GIMP). It's kinda like gluing a picture of some wings overtop the logo on a Ferrari and saying "See, it's an Aston Martin!"

On 06/10/10 23:03, Nick Sabalausky wrote:
>> Ok, for me GTK is native because I use Linux and a GTK based desktop.
>> I know that there's a native GTK port for OSX/Quartz and I thought GTK had
>> themes to look native on Windows?
>>
>
> It does make a vague attempt to look native on Windows, and is FAR better in
> that regard than, say, Swing, Winamp, Iron/Chrome, or pretty much anything
> from Apple. But there's still rather noticable differences in both look (the
> chunkiness I mentioned, just as one example) and in feel (particulary if
> you're using GIMP). It's kinda like gluing a picture of some wings overtop
> the logo on a Ferrari and saying "See, it's an Aston Martin!"

Platform wise, GTK looks appalling on OS X, acceptable, if non-native on Windows (I think there's a GTK theme that fixes this, not sure), and, well, you use it on linux. As for Qt, it uses the native GUI for all the platforms it works on (and if you don't like that there's a config tool to make it look as ugly as you like :)).

From a developers standpoint, GTK is a lot more awkward to work with (whether you're using the C interface or the GtkD wrapper), and is generally not as nice to work with (based on a few hundred lines of code that did very little, I switched to Qt at that point). Qt on the other hand I've found a pleasure to work with from day 1, everything seems to work as expected, and typically needs far less code.

-- 
Robert
http://octarineparrot.com/