On 2011-04-05 15:25, Matthias Pleh wrote:
> Am 05.04.2011 15:06, schrieb Jacob Carlborg:
>> On 2011-04-05 13:08, Matthias Pleh wrote:
>>> So I think for short or middle term such solution like gtkD, QtD, DWT
>>> are good, but for the long term the D community needs a D GUI library
>>> completly written in D.
>>>
>>> Just my thoughts
>>> °Matthias
>>>
>>
>> You do know that DWT is completely written in D? Don't you think we can
>> create an environment for creating D GUI applications using DWT?
>>
>
> Yes, that would be an option. I have thought several times about that.
> But I think, to get really acceptet by a wide range of developers, the
> library must be adjusted, to suit better the D coding style. This way we
> could get the whole power of D. But this also means that you get more
> and more away from the java path and sometime you are not able any more
> to merge changes in the java path to D.
> So this means, this would really be a fork, not just a port.
> (I hope, I have explained it correctly in my broken english, and I hope
> it sound not rude :|
>
>
> °Matthias

I see what you mean and I'm not seeing it as rude. It's hard to find a balance where it's still possible to merge future versions and taking full advantage of D.

-- 
/Jacob Carlborg

spir wrote:
> What about having just one image type (pixmap) and allowing its initialisation from files of various formats:

Yeah, that's essentially how it works. They use the same Image class underneath.

The differences between bmp and png are among the things I want to clean up for release though. It's not pretty like it should be right now.

On 4/5/11, Jacob Carlborg <doob@me.com> wrote:
> It's handy if you have a common directory with lib files.

Well I've always wanted to do that, but how eactly do you set a library search directory with Optlink/DMD?

On 4/5/11, Jacob Carlborg <doob@me.com> wrote:
> pragma(lib) works but I don't think it's cross-platform. You have to
> specify the extension.

Wouldn't this work?

version(Windows)
{
    libExt = ".lib";
}
version(Linux)
{
    libExt = ".a";
}

pragma(lib, "myLibrary" ~ libExt);

"Jacob Carlborg" <doob@me.com> wrote in message news:inf285$30n8$1@digitalmars.com...
> On 2011-04-05 09:08, Nick Sabalausky wrote:
>> "Andrej Mitrovic"<andrej.mitrovich@gmail.com>  wrote in message news:mailman.3178.1301970383.4748.digitalmars-d@puremagic.com...
>>> On 4/5/11, Nick Sabalausky<a@a.a>  wrote:
>>>> After all, I
>>>> *really* want to get around to making my own web browser (based off
>>>> either
>>>> Mozilla or Chromium) - I'm getting really fed up with the current state
>>>> of
>>>> available web browsers. Well, and the web as a whole (god I fucking
>>>> hate
>>>> the
>>>> web), but one step at a time, I guess).
>>>
>>> I'll be the first to install it.
>>>
>>> Btw, there's a full web browser example in the QtD sources. But it has to be ported to D2. And then you have to deal with any eventual bugs along the way. :]
>>
>> Ha! I may not need to do much after all: I was just looking through Wikipedia's giant list of browsers, found a few that looked potentially promising, tried them all and...well, was mostly disappointed. But the *last* one I had left to try I've been really impressed with so far:
>>
>> Arora (Qt/WebKit)
>> http://code.google.com/p/arora/
>>
>> I've only tried it breifly, but the UI is *actually nice*! Only modern
>> browser out there with a UI that isn't absolutely horrid. I didn't even
>> see
>> *one* instance of invisible-text on my light-on-dark system, which is
>> unbeleivavly rare among all software these days.
>>
>> And it has a lot of essential stuff built in, like ad blocking,
>> disableable
>> JS, and a "ClickToFlash" which I haven't tried out yet. There's still a
>> few
>> things it seems like it might be missing, like equivalents to NoScript,
>> BetterPrivacy and maybe DownloadHelper and DownThemAll, but most of those
>> are less important to me, and even as it is right now it's a damn good
>> start. Maybe I could add some of that remaining stuff, or heck, maybe
>> even
>> port the whole thing to D ;)
>
> I think it looks quite similar to Firefox, at least the Mac OS X version.
>

On windows it looks *very* different from firefox (unless you count FF 1.x). Maybe FF actually bothers trying to integrate with the system on OSX, but on windows the out-of-the-box installs of FF2+ (and especially FF3+) are skinned, flashy atrocities. Not nearly as horrific as Chrome, but still ugly as hell. Also Arora doesn't have FF's AwfulBar.

Plus, Arora doesn't have the unified forward/back dropdowns. The unified forward/back dropdowns sounded good when I first heard about them, but ever since I tried them I've absolutely hated them.

On 2011-04-05 21:18, Nick Sabalausky wrote:
> "Jacob Carlborg"<doob@me.com>  wrote in message
> news:inf285$30n8$1@digitalmars.com...
>> On 2011-04-05 09:08, Nick Sabalausky wrote:
>>> "Andrej Mitrovic"<andrej.mitrovich@gmail.com>   wrote in message
>>> news:mailman.3178.1301970383.4748.digitalmars-d@puremagic.com...
>>>> On 4/5/11, Nick Sabalausky<a@a.a>   wrote:
>>>>> After all, I
>>>>> *really* want to get around to making my own web browser (based off
>>>>> either
>>>>> Mozilla or Chromium) - I'm getting really fed up with the current state
>>>>> of
>>>>> available web browsers. Well, and the web as a whole (god I fucking
>>>>> hate
>>>>> the
>>>>> web), but one step at a time, I guess).
>>>>
>>>> I'll be the first to install it.
>>>>
>>>> Btw, there's a full web browser example in the QtD sources. But it has
>>>> to be ported to D2. And then you have to deal with any eventual bugs
>>>> along the way. :]
>>>
>>> Ha! I may not need to do much after all: I was just looking through
>>> Wikipedia's giant list of browsers, found a few that looked potentially
>>> promising, tried them all and...well, was mostly disappointed. But the
>>> *last* one I had left to try I've been really impressed with so far:
>>>
>>> Arora (Qt/WebKit)
>>> http://code.google.com/p/arora/
>>>
>>> I've only tried it breifly, but the UI is *actually nice*! Only modern
>>> browser out there with a UI that isn't absolutely horrid. I didn't even
>>> see
>>> *one* instance of invisible-text on my light-on-dark system, which is
>>> unbeleivavly rare among all software these days.
>>>
>>> And it has a lot of essential stuff built in, like ad blocking,
>>> disableable
>>> JS, and a "ClickToFlash" which I haven't tried out yet. There's still a
>>> few
>>> things it seems like it might be missing, like equivalents to NoScript,
>>> BetterPrivacy and maybe DownloadHelper and DownThemAll, but most of those
>>> are less important to me, and even as it is right now it's a damn good
>>> start. Maybe I could add some of that remaining stuff, or heck, maybe
>>> even
>>> port the whole thing to D ;)
>>
>> I think it looks quite similar to Firefox, at least the Mac OS X version.
>>
>
> On windows it looks *very* different from firefox (unless you count FF 1.x).
> Maybe FF actually bothers trying to integrate with the system on OSX, but on
> windows the out-of-the-box installs of FF2+ (and especially FF3+) are
> skinned, flashy atrocities. Not nearly as horrific as Chrome, but still ugly
> as hell. Also Arora doesn't have FF's AwfulBar.

I'm referring to Firefox 4. What's the "AwfulBar" ?

> Plus, Arora doesn't have the unified forward/back dropdowns. The unified
> forward/back dropdowns sounded good when I first heard about them, but ever
> since I tried them I've absolutely hated them.
>
>
>


-- 
/Jacob Carlborg

On 2011-04-05 20:57, Andrej Mitrovic wrote:
> On 4/5/11, Jacob Carlborg<doob@me.com>  wrote:
>> It's handy if you have a common directory with lib files.
>
> Well I've always wanted to do that, but how eactly do you set a
> library search directory with Optlink/DMD?

Don't know about Optlink but on Posix systems it's: -L-L/path/to/libraires

-- 
/Jacob Carlborg

Am 05.04.2011 22:20, schrieb Jacob Carlborg:
> 
> I'm referring to Firefox 4. What's the "AwfulBar" ?
> 

Probably the "Awesomebar".. the feature in FF3+ that searches all
visisted URLs (and the page titles) for the word you type into the
URL-bar (and not just completes URLs like before).
http://blog.mozilla.com/blog/2008/04/21/a-little-something-awesome-about-firefox-3/

I personally like it.

"Daniel Gibson" <metalcaedes@gmail.com> wrote in message news:infu1q$6bn$1@digitalmars.com...
> Am 05.04.2011 22:20, schrieb Jacob Carlborg:
>>
>> I'm referring to Firefox 4. What's the "AwfulBar" ?
>>
>
> Probably the "Awesomebar".. the feature in FF3+ that searches all
> visisted URLs (and the page titles) for the word you type into the
> URL-bar (and not just completes URLs like before).
> http://blog.mozilla.com/blog/2008/04/21/a-little-something-awesome-about-firefox-3/
>

Yea, it's also really, really ugly.

"Nick Sabalausky" <a@a.a> wrote in message news:infvdk$1sb2$1@digitalmars.com...
> "Daniel Gibson" <metalcaedes@gmail.com> wrote in message news:infu1q$6bn$1@digitalmars.com...
>> Am 05.04.2011 22:20, schrieb Jacob Carlborg:
>>>
>>> I'm referring to Firefox 4. What's the "AwfulBar" ?
>>>
>>
>> Probably the "Awesomebar".. the feature in FF3+ that searches all
>> visisted URLs (and the page titles) for the word you type into the
>> URL-bar (and not just completes URLs like before).
>> http://blog.mozilla.com/blog/2008/04/21/a-little-something-awesome-about-firefox-3/
>>
>
> Yea, it's also really, really ugly.

It turned out very much a love-it-or-hate-it feature (even more than most of what Mozilla does). A lot of people love the bar, a lot of people hate it.