1.DFL's Memory Usage is the least than other. winsamp.exe is 2.1M,DFL's example's exe is 2.7M.
2.The size of DFL's example's exe files is the least than other, and only a single file.
3.DFL's source code is the most easy to understand.

Although DFL not use on Linux or Mac os X,it's easy to do for high level Software Engineer.

Now D need a simple ,quickly,easy to study UI Controls for D to develop.

Frank

On 13/05/14 02:10, FrankLike wrote:
> 1.DFL's Memory Usage is the least than other. winsamp.exe is 2.1M,DFL's
> example's exe is 2.7M.
> 2.The size of DFL's example's exe files is the least than other, and
> only a single file.
> 3.DFL's source code is the most easy to understand.
>
> Although DFL not use on Linux or Mac os X,it's easy to do for high level
> Software Engineer.
>
> Now D need a simple ,quickly,easy to study UI Controls for D to develop.

I would think it would get more complicated if it got support for other platforms. Also, without having looked at its features, I'm guessing it's not as comprehensive as DWT, Gtk or Qt.

-- 
/Jacob Carlborg

On Tuesday, 13 May 2014 at 06:24:27 UTC, Jacob Carlborg wrote:
> On 13/05/14 02:10, FrankLike wrote:
>> 1.DFL's Memory Usage is the least than other. winsamp.exe is 2.1M,DFL's
>> example's exe is 2.7M.
>> 2.The size of DFL's example's exe files is the least than other, and
>> only a single file.
>> 3.DFL's source code is the most easy to understand.
>>
>> Although DFL not use on Linux or Mac os X,it's easy to do for high level
>> Software Engineer.
>>
>> Now D need a simple ,quickly,easy to study UI Controls for D to develop.
>
> I would think it would get more complicated if it got support for other platforms. Also, without having looked at its features, I'm guessing it's not as comprehensive as DWT, Gtk or Qt.

Thank you.
DWT AND DFL ,their Memory Usage is the least .
but DWT is more complicated than DFL.

Look at the base control :Button
at DFL :only 270 lines ,
but at DWT: need >1400 lines.

Thank you again.

On 13/05/14 08:44, FrankLike wrote:

> Thank you.
> DWT AND DFL ,their Memory Usage is the least .
> but DWT is more complicated than DFL.
>
> Look at the base control :Button
> at DFL :only 270 lines ,
> but at DWT: need >1400 lines.
>
> Thank you again.

The question is what the buttons in each library is capable to do. I know that at least in DWT, many widgets contain quite a lot of code to customize them, to make them behave similarly on all platforms.

-- 
/Jacob Carlborg

On Tuesday, 13 May 2014 at 09:32:43 UTC, Jacob Carlborg wrote:
> On 13/05/14 08:44, FrankLike wrote:
>
>> Thank you.
>> DWT AND DFL ,their Memory Usage is the least .
>> but DWT is more complicated than DFL.
>>
>> Look at the base control :Button
>> at DFL :only 270 lines ,
>> but at DWT: need >1400 lines.
>>
>> Thank you again.
>
> The question is what the buttons in each library is capable to do. I know that at least in DWT, many widgets contain quite a lot of code to customize them, to make them behave similarly on all platforms.

Thank you.

Look at the   Button class in DWT.
In Linux ,button class need 844 lines,but in win32 ,button class need >1300 lines.
Look at the setText Method in button class.
 There is a great difference between in Linux and in Win32.

public void setText (String string) {}

But if the same thing in DFL, the codes will be less. Because in Win32 ,DFL only need 270~280 lines for button class.

Thank you again.

On Tuesday, 13 May 2014 at 00:10:15 UTC, FrankLike wrote:
> 1.DFL's Memory Usage is the least than other. winsamp.exe is 2.1M,DFL's example's exe is 2.7M.
> 2.The size of DFL's example's exe files is the least than other, and only a single file.
> 3.DFL's source code is the most easy to understand.

DFL is just a thin wrapper around Win32, no surprise. I've found my apps written using DFL work quite fine in Linux via Wine, so I use them from both OSes.

DFL is just a thin wrapper around Win32, no surprise. I've
> found my apps written using DFL work quite fine in Linux via Wine, so I use them from both OSes.

In Linux?The exe  was compiled in win32?
Don't  play jokes  on it.

DFL is really cool. Not all programmers need complex toolkits. A lot of need easy to learning toolkits for medium projects.

It would be cool if somebody will handle developing of DFL. It's better to have one such toolkit, than tons of complex and not finished toolkits.

On Tuesday, 13 May 2014 at 15:28:05 UTC, Suliman wrote:
> DFL is really cool. Not all programmers need complex toolkits. A lot of need easy to learning toolkits for medium projects.
>
> It would be cool if somebody will handle developing of DFL. It's better to have one such toolkit, than tons of complex and not finished toolkits.

Yes,if you have enough interesting,let us look for the DFL'author
together,ok?

On 2014-05-13 12:14, FrankLike wrote:

> Look at the   Button class in DWT.
> In Linux ,button class need 844 lines,but in win32 ,button class need
>  >1300 lines.
> Look at the setText Method in button class.
>   There is a great difference between in Linux and in Win32.
>
> public void setText (String string) {}
>
> But if the same thing in DFL, the codes will be less. Because in Win32
> ,DFL only need 270~280 lines for button class.

If you look at the code you can see that DWT supports buttons with text and images, which DFL doesn't. What I'm saying is that DWT does more than DFL, supports more features.

-- 
/Jacob Carlborg