www.digitalmars.com         C & C++   DMDScript  

digitalmars.D - MS WTL is open sourced. Is it worth to be ported to D ?

reply "Blandger" <zeroman prominvest.com.ua> writes:
What do you think about it?
Is it worth to be ported to D or it's a rubbish and wasting a time ? It's
about 1 Mb of sources in the headers as I can see. I don't know is it
possible to port WTL templates to the D template scheme as I heard once D's
are a weaker the C++ templates... Is it true?

http://sourceforge.net/projects/wtl

There are many GUI projects. DUI (GKT based), DIG/unDIG (WinAPI based),
DWT(A port of the Standard Widget Toolkit), Mike Wynn's libraries - DFC (D
foundation classes)... (sorry if  I  didn't mention yours).

I'm almost lost myself in them. :( Is it worth to make so many GUI port
knowing some of them will die sooner or almost died already? The same is
about WTL.... I think it could be much better to concentrate on one or two.
What do you think?

Regards.
May 14 2004
next sibling parent reply FlyTox <rox271 hotmail.com> writes:
I'm very surpised to see WTL on SourceForge. I always thought it was 
sourced from M$??? As far as I understand WTL is a very efficient 
alternative to MFC which produces much smaller EXE. The trouble with WTL 
is the permanent lack of documentation. One has to dig in samples or 
source code to have a chance to figure out how it works.
Also WTL is specific to Win32 when some alternative GUI are portable.
I personnaly never had a time to spend on WTL though it is very 
attracting but not reliable for a professionnal use.

Blandger wrote:

 What do you think about it?
 Is it worth to be ported to D or it's a rubbish and wasting a time ? It's
 about 1 Mb of sources in the headers as I can see. I don't know is it
 possible to port WTL templates to the D template scheme as I heard once D's
 are a weaker the C++ templates... Is it true?
 
 http://sourceforge.net/projects/wtl
 
 There are many GUI projects. DUI (GKT based), DIG/unDIG (WinAPI based),
 DWT(A port of the Standard Widget Toolkit), Mike Wynn's libraries - DFC (D
 foundation classes)... (sorry if  I  didn't mention yours).
 
 I'm almost lost myself in them. :( Is it worth to make so many GUI port
 knowing some of them will die sooner or almost died already? The same is
 about WTL.... I think it could be much better to concentrate on one or two.
 What do you think?
 
 Regards.
May 14 2004
parent reply Anon <Anon_member pathlink.com> writes:
 The trouble with WTL 
 is the permanent lack of documentation.


I imagine with it becoming opensource this will change, in fact second item on
the todo list is to right up some docs in .chm format.

I've grown to despise MFC over the years , and will defintly be moving to WTL
for C++, I think a D port would be interesting, but as Blandger said there are
already a half dozen ports in progress.

However Id be willing to help if someone started the port.

In article <c82auk$26u$1 digitaldaemon.com>, FlyTox says...

I'm very surpised to see WTL on SourceForge. I always thought it was 
sourced from M$??? As far as I understand WTL is a very efficient 
alternative to MFC which produces much smaller EXE. The trouble with WTL 
is the permanent lack of documentation. One has to dig in samples or 
source code to have a chance to figure out how it works.
Also WTL is specific to Win32 when some alternative GUI are portable.
I personnaly never had a time to spend on WTL though it is very 
attracting but not reliable for a professionnal use.

Blandger wrote:

 What do you think about it?
 Is it worth to be ported to D or it's a rubbish and wasting a time ? It's
 about 1 Mb of sources in the headers as I can see. I don't know is it
 possible to port WTL templates to the D template scheme as I heard once D's
 are a weaker the C++ templates... Is it true?
 
 http://sourceforge.net/projects/wtl
 
 There are many GUI projects. DUI (GKT based), DIG/unDIG (WinAPI based),
 DWT(A port of the Standard Widget Toolkit), Mike Wynn's libraries - DFC (D
 foundation classes)... (sorry if  I  didn't mention yours).
 
 I'm almost lost myself in them. :( Is it worth to make so many GUI port
 knowing some of them will die sooner or almost died already? The same is
 about WTL.... I think it could be much better to concentrate on one or two.
 What do you think?
 
 Regards.
May 14 2004
parent reply "Achilleas Margaritis" <axilmar b-online.gr> writes:
WTL sucks big time. It follows the same principles with MFC:

1) it uses a two-step creation process: first you create the C++ object,
then you call 'create' to create the window. Between creation of object and
window creation, the object is unusable.

2) it uses message maps, with many problems, especially macro hell (message
maps are implemented through macros). And it violates object-oriented
principles: a virtual method will not be called, even if it overrides ar
method of the superclass. It has to be declared in the message map. And it
is slow as hell, because it searches the message entries one by one to look
for the command id that corresponds to the method that is to be called. It
is also not safe, because, due to macros, there is no type checking.

3) it uses command ids that the user should maintain. To anyone that has not
used the Microsoft method before, please avoid it! it becomes a nightmare,
Visual Studio breaks and can't handle it, and in the end the poor programmer
has to manually correct the ids.

4) many things are not objects, as they should be. For example, toolbar
buttons are handled by ids. In order to put a combo box in a toolbar, you
have to put fake buttons that will be covered by the combo box.

5) the UI does not follow the model-view-controller paradigm. The UI state
is updated when the the message loop is idle. This leads to all shorts of
debugging problems.

6) it contains one more string class.

There are many many other things that make WTL/MFC a nightmare. I know
because I have used it, and still use, in an application for my company that
started in 2000 (finished in time, but with many heroics from me and my
colleagues in order to avoid WTL/MFC nasties).

Are there any advantages of WTL ? it produces executables of small size. Is
that really important ? storage space is no longer and issue these days
(both permanent and intermediate), and operating systems are smart enough to
swap out unused parts.

If one wants to look for a good architecture, look no further than Javas'
Swing and Trolltech's Qt.
May 15 2004
next sibling parent FlyTox <rox271 hotmail.com> writes:
It looks like you had a first and unique experience with MFC, haven't 
you? First time may be nice or a nightmare, depends on people :-).

I think the today large memory availability is not an excuse to produce 
bad code. Also you have to think about information transfer : when 
starting the application, when distributing the application etc...
And swapping on HD is even worst for program speed.

Achilleas Margaritis wrote:


 WTL sucks big time. It follows the same principles with MFC:
 
 1) it uses a two-step creation process: first you create the C++ object,
 then you call 'create' to create the window. Between creation of object and
 window creation, the object is unusable.
 
 2) it uses message maps, with many problems, especially macro hell (message
 maps are implemented through macros). And it violates object-oriented
 principles: a virtual method will not be called, even if it overrides ar
 method of the superclass. It has to be declared in the message map. And it
 is slow as hell, because it searches the message entries one by one to look
 for the command id that corresponds to the method that is to be called. It
 is also not safe, because, due to macros, there is no type checking.
 
 3) it uses command ids that the user should maintain. To anyone that has not
 used the Microsoft method before, please avoid it! it becomes a nightmare,
 Visual Studio breaks and can't handle it, and in the end the poor programmer
 has to manually correct the ids.
 
 4) many things are not objects, as they should be. For example, toolbar
 buttons are handled by ids. In order to put a combo box in a toolbar, you
 have to put fake buttons that will be covered by the combo box.
 
 5) the UI does not follow the model-view-controller paradigm. The UI state
 is updated when the the message loop is idle. This leads to all shorts of
 debugging problems.
 
 6) it contains one more string class.
 
 There are many many other things that make WTL/MFC a nightmare. I know
 because I have used it, and still use, in an application for my company that
 started in 2000 (finished in time, but with many heroics from me and my
 colleagues in order to avoid WTL/MFC nasties).
 
 Are there any advantages of WTL ? it produces executables of small size. Is
 that really important ? storage space is no longer and issue these days
 (both permanent and intermediate), and operating systems are smart enough to
 swap out unused parts.
 
 If one wants to look for a good architecture, look no further than Javas'
 Swing and Trolltech's Qt.
May 15 2004
prev sibling parent reply tlg <tlg_member pathlink.com> writes:
Are these really problems with WTL, or just your lack of programming ability?



In article <c84u4o$q4o$1 digitaldaemon.com>, Achilleas Margaritis says...

WTL sucks big time. It follows the same principles with MFC:

1) it uses a two-step creation process: first you create the C++ object,
then you call 'create' to create the window. Between creation of object and
window creation, the object is unusable.

2) it uses message maps, with many problems, especially macro hell (message
maps are implemented through macros). And it violates object-oriented
principles: a virtual method will not be called, even if it overrides ar
method of the superclass. It has to be declared in the message map. And it
is slow as hell, because it searches the message entries one by one to look
for the command id that corresponds to the method that is to be called. It
is also not safe, because, due to macros, there is no type checking.

3) it uses command ids that the user should maintain. To anyone that has not
used the Microsoft method before, please avoid it! it becomes a nightmare,
Visual Studio breaks and can't handle it, and in the end the poor programmer
has to manually correct the ids.

4) many things are not objects, as they should be. For example, toolbar
buttons are handled by ids. In order to put a combo box in a toolbar, you
have to put fake buttons that will be covered by the combo box.

5) the UI does not follow the model-view-controller paradigm. The UI state
is updated when the the message loop is idle. This leads to all shorts of
debugging problems.

6) it contains one more string class.

There are many many other things that make WTL/MFC a nightmare. I know
because I have used it, and still use, in an application for my company that
started in 2000 (finished in time, but with many heroics from me and my
colleagues in order to avoid WTL/MFC nasties).

Are there any advantages of WTL ? it produces executables of small size. Is
that really important ? storage space is no longer and issue these days
(both permanent and intermediate), and operating systems are smart enough to
swap out unused parts.

If one wants to look for a good architecture, look no further than Javas'
Swing and Trolltech's Qt.
Dec 21 2005
next sibling parent reply Tom S <h3r3tic remove.mat.uni.torun.pl> writes:
tlg wrote:

 Are these really problems with WTL, or just your lack of programming ability?


Sometimes I wish these newsgroups were moderated...


-- 
-----BEGIN GEEK CODE BLOCK-----
Version: 3.1
GCS/M d-pu s+: a-->----- C+++$>++++ UL P+ L+ E--- W++ N++ o? K? w++ !O 
!M V? PS- PE- Y PGP t 5 X? R tv-- b DI- D+ G e>+++ h>++ !r !y
------END GEEK CODE BLOCK------

Tomasz Stachowiak  /+ a.k.a. h3r3tic +/
Dec 21 2005
parent MicroWizard <MicroWizard_member pathlink.com> writes:
Or we need to put on the top of all forums:
'experienced Microsoft underlings keep out' ;-)

Tamás Nagy

In article <dob677$18g0$1 digitaldaemon.com>, Tom S says...

tlg wrote:

 Are these really problems with WTL, or just your lack of programming ability?


Sometimes I wish these newsgroups were moderated...


-- 
-----BEGIN GEEK CODE BLOCK-----
Version: 3.1
GCS/M d-pu s+: a-->----- C+++$>++++ UL P+ L+ E--- W++ N++ o? K? w++ !O 
!M V? PS- PE- Y PGP t 5 X? R tv-- b DI- D+ G e>+++ h>++ !r !y
------END GEEK CODE BLOCK------

Tomasz Stachowiak  /+ a.k.a. h3r3tic +/
Dec 22 2005
prev sibling parent J C Calvarese <technocrat7 gmail.com> writes:
In article <dob4ua$16br$1 digitaldaemon.com>, tlg says...

Are these really problems with WTL, or just your lack of programming ability?


Do you actually want to discuss this topic or are you just a troll? I'm guessing
you're just a troll since this conversation has been dead for a year and a half,
and you didn't add any information with your post.

For those that don't know the ancient post he's replying to, see:
http://www.digitalmars.com/drn-bin/wwwnews?digitalmars.D/1176 (Sat, 15 May 2004)

jcc7
Dec 22 2005
prev sibling parent reply "Achilleas Margaritis" <axilmar b-online.gr> writes:
"Blandger" <zeroman prominvest.com.ua> wrote in message
news:c823so$2q2g$1 digitaldaemon.com...

 What do you think about it?
 Is it worth to be ported to D or it's a rubbish and wasting a time ? It's
 about 1 Mb of sources in the headers as I can see. I don't know is it
 possible to port WTL templates to the D template scheme as I heard once


D's

 are a weaker the C++ templates... Is it true?

 http://sourceforge.net/projects/wtl

 There are many GUI projects. DUI (GKT based), DIG/unDIG (WinAPI based),
 DWT(A port of the Standard Widget Toolkit), Mike Wynn's libraries - DFC (D
 foundation classes)... (sorry if  I  didn't mention yours).

 I'm almost lost myself in them. :( Is it worth to make so many GUI port
 knowing some of them will die sooner or almost died already? The same is
 about WTL.... I think it could be much better to concentrate on one or


two.

 What do you think?

 Regards.


If you search the forum, you will see that I have said in the very beginning
that the D community should unite and produce a set of libraries, especially
GUI, which would be the officially sponsored libraries by Digital Mars. No
one has listened to me.

Now we have this situation where everyone, including me, is making his own
GUI.

This fragmentation will prohibit D's success.

No matter how good a programming language is, it is the libraries that
count. And also the impression managers get: a set of cross-platform
libraries that cover most needs (ala Java) would make D something worthwhile
to use in the eyes of men that take the decisions, i.e. the managers of
departments that want to solve their problems through computer applications.

And before one makes an analogy with C++, let me tell you that the situation
is quite different: when C++ was invented, there was no other
object-oriented programming language around that could be used with existing
code in an easy way. But now, we have Java, which has libraries to cover all
needs, and D, which has (almost) nothing.
May 15 2004
next sibling parent FlyTox <rox271 hotmail.com> writes:
Many people were already programming OO before C++.
You can do that in C using structs and function pointers with the 
address of the struct passed as first parameter (serves as this).
The concept comes before the language :-)

Achilleas Margaritis wrote:


 "Blandger" <zeroman prominvest.com.ua> wrote in message
 news:c823so$2q2g$1 digitaldaemon.com...
 

What do you think about it?
Is it worth to be ported to D or it's a rubbish and wasting a time ? It's
about 1 Mb of sources in the headers as I can see. I don't know is it
possible to port WTL templates to the D template scheme as I heard once


 
 D's
 

are a weaker the C++ templates... Is it true?

http://sourceforge.net/projects/wtl

There are many GUI projects. DUI (GKT based), DIG/unDIG (WinAPI based),
DWT(A port of the Standard Widget Toolkit), Mike Wynn's libraries - DFC (D
foundation classes)... (sorry if  I  didn't mention yours).

I'm almost lost myself in them. :( Is it worth to make so many GUI port
knowing some of them will die sooner or almost died already? The same is
about WTL.... I think it could be much better to concentrate on one or


 
 two.
 

What do you think?

Regards.


 
 
 If you search the forum, you will see that I have said in the very beginning
 that the D community should unite and produce a set of libraries, especially
 GUI, which would be the officially sponsored libraries by Digital Mars. No
 one has listened to me.
 
 Now we have this situation where everyone, including me, is making his own
 GUI.
 
 This fragmentation will prohibit D's success.
 
 No matter how good a programming language is, it is the libraries that
 count. And also the impression managers get: a set of cross-platform
 libraries that cover most needs (ala Java) would make D something worthwhile
 to use in the eyes of men that take the decisions, i.e. the managers of
 departments that want to solve their problems through computer applications.
 
 And before one makes an analogy with C++, let me tell you that the situation
 is quite different: when C++ was invented, there was no other
 object-oriented programming language around that could be used with existing
 code in an easy way. But now, we have Java, which has libraries to cover all
 needs, and D, which has (almost) nothing.
May 15 2004
prev sibling next sibling parent Ant <duitoolkit yahoo.ca> writes:
On Sat, 15 May 2004 13:46:17 +0300, Achilleas Margaritis wrote:


 
 "Blandger" <zeroman prominvest.com.ua> wrote in message
 news:c823so$2q2g$1 digitaldaemon.com...

 What do you think about it?
 Is it worth to be ported to D or it's a rubbish and wasting a time ? It's
 about 1 Mb of sources in the headers as I can see. I don't know is it
 possible to port WTL templates to the D template scheme as I heard once


 D's

 are a weaker the C++ templates... Is it true?

 http://sourceforge.net/projects/wtl

 There are many GUI projects. DUI (GKT based), DIG/unDIG (WinAPI based),
 DWT(A port of the Standard Widget Toolkit), Mike Wynn's libraries - DFC (D
 foundation classes)... (sorry if  I  didn't mention yours).

 I'm almost lost myself in them. :( Is it worth to make so many GUI port
 knowing some of them will die sooner or almost died already? The same is
 about WTL.... I think it could be much better to concentrate on one or


 two.

 What do you think?

 Regards.


 
 If you search the forum, you will see that I have said in the very beginning
 that the D community should unite and produce a set of libraries, especially
 GUI, which would be the officially sponsored libraries by Digital Mars. No
 one has listened to me.


I think DWT is it.
I lost contact with it's development but seems that it's active.
Walter showed interest on DWT.

DUI seems to be destine to reach only half of it's goals
I have no reports of it being used at all but for sure
makes a presence on the GTK bindings page.
I have some sort of a pre-alpha leds version running on windows
(leds is a D IDE built on DUI) and seems to demonstrate that
DUI for windows is a valid toolkit.
(I'll make an announcement for leds windows soon)

Ant
May 15 2004
prev sibling parent reply Andy Friesen <andy ikagames.com> writes:
Achilleas Margaritis wrote:


 
 If you search the forum, you will see that I have said in the very beginning
 that the D community should unite and produce a set of libraries, especially
 GUI, which would be the officially sponsored libraries by Digital Mars. No
 one has listened to me.


Everybody is writing whatever interests them personally, so it's no 
surprise that there's some redundancy.

There's no way to stop this scattering from occurring, and I'm not sure 
you'd want to.  A lot of people are writing D, which is a good thing. 
(the cathedral and the bazaar?)  A lot of ideas can spring from 
disposable code.

 
 Now we have this situation where everyone, including me, is making his own
 GUI.


Why?  There are a lot of really good projects already in the works.  DUI 
and unDig work in the here and now.  About half of DWT successfully 
compiles now. (only 30k lines to go!)

 
 This fragmentation will prohibit D's success.


D seems to be succeeding quite well despite this. :)

 
 And before one makes an analogy with C++, let me tell you that the situation
 is quite different: when C++ was invented, there was no other
 object-oriented programming language around that could be used with existing
 code in an easy way. But now, we have Java, which has libraries to cover all
 needs, and D, which has (almost) nothing.


A big part of the reason I like D is that it is neither of those 
languages. ;)

  -- andy
May 15 2004
next sibling parent reply "Blandger" <zeroman aport.ru> writes:
 If you search the forum, you will see that I have said in the very




beginning

 that the D community should unite and produce a set of libraries,




especially

 GUI, which would be the officially sponsored libraries by Digital Mars.




No

 one has listened to me.




I'm agree with Achilleas Margaritis. It's better to make "officially
sponsored" by DM GUI toolkit. I don't mind if it will be a DWT.


 There's no way to stop this scattering from occurring, and I'm not sure
 you'd want to.  A lot of people are writing D, which is a good thing.
 (the cathedral and the bazaar?)  A lot of ideas can spring from
 disposable code.


Sure, we can't stop it but it's look like wasting a valuable time as for me.
I don't think spreading the community forces is wise thing.


 Why?  There are a lot of really good projects already in the works.


But how much of them will be finished and will grow further ? I think not
all of them.



 DUI
 and unDig work in the here and now.  About half of DWT successfully
 compiles now. (only 30k lines to go!)


I wish DWT have a long life. I think I'd like to contribute it especially if
it become "officially sponsored". I understand the term "officially
sponsored" means almost nothing. But for me that means I can take it into
account for the future because other smart and experienced people in this
forum think so too.



 This fragmentation will prohibit D's success.




I agree. It can happen.


 D seems to be succeeding quite well despite this. :)


Sometimes developers like me (and you) too much optimistic. :))

At present time I think D looks like a toy for the digging in it at the
spare time. I think many peolpe (may be like me) can lost interest to it
without good and (may be) 'officially sponsored' libs. It should be GUI
first, then XML or something alse...


Thank you Walter. D is like a 'little fairy tale' this days when new good
language + compiler are produced by a 'big / rich men' as rule. Many langs,
compilers failed but D growing, getting better and wider known. So don't
forget your opinion and your word is really considered by many people (like
me). I mean relation to libraries.

Pls, don't get me wrong. I'm trust experienced people and I have my own head
to make a decision. But take it into account...



 And before one makes an analogy with C++, let me tell you that the




situation

 is quite different: when C++ was invented, there was no other
 object-oriented programming language around that could be used with




existing

 code in an easy way. But now, we have Java, which has libraries to cover




all

 needs, and D, which has (almost) nothing.




I agree again. I like a lot of libs in the java and hate the lack of them in
the D. :(



 A big part of the reason I like D is that it is neither of those


languages. ;)

What place does D have in the development community especially for the real
projects ?

Regards.
May 15 2004
next sibling parent Andy Friesen <andy ikagames.com> writes:
Blandger wrote:


 Sure, we can't stop it but it's look like wasting a valuable time as for me.
 I don't think spreading the community forces is wise thing.


It's only wasted if you look at things purely from a production 
standpoint.  I spend a fair amount of time programming things that I 
think are interesting, with a language that I think is interesting.  I 
consider my time well spent.

That being said, it's certainly better to contribute to an existing 
project than it is to start yet another, but things are as they are, and 
aren't going to change. ;)


 I wish DWT have a long life. I think I'd like to contribute it especially if
 it become "officially sponsored". I understand the term "officially
 sponsored" means almost nothing. But for me that means I can take it into
 account for the future because other smart and experienced people in this
 forum think so too.


I don't even know what "officially sponsored" means.  It doesn't seem 
likely to me that something as heavy as DWT would be incorporated into 
Phobos.

  -- andy
May 15 2004
prev sibling parent reply "Walter" <newshound digitalmars.com> writes:
"Blandger" <zeroman aport.ru> wrote in message
news:c85o7c$1vf3$1 digitaldaemon.com...

 Thank you Walter. D is like a 'little fairy tale' this days when new good
 language + compiler are produced by a 'big / rich men' as rule. Many


langs,

 compilers failed but D growing, getting better and wider known. So don't
 forget your opinion and your word is really considered by many people


(like

 me). I mean relation to libraries.

 Pls, don't get me wrong. I'm trust experienced people and I have my own


head

 to make a decision. But take it into account...


I understand. But the problem with me endorsing an 'official' gui is my lack
of experience with them. I wouldn't know a good gui if I tripped over it. My
preference would be the conservative approach and looking around for an
existing and very successful portable gui with an appropriate license, and
then translating it into D.
May 15 2004
parent reply "Achilleas Margaritis" <axilmar b-online.gr> writes:
"Walter" <newshound digitalmars.com> wrote in message
news:c8743t$s82$1 digitaldaemon.com...

 "Blandger" <zeroman aport.ru> wrote in message
 news:c85o7c$1vf3$1 digitaldaemon.com...

 Thank you Walter. D is like a 'little fairy tale' this days when new




good

 language + compiler are produced by a 'big / rich men' as rule. Many


 langs,

 compilers failed but D growing, getting better and wider known. So don't
 forget your opinion and your word is really considered by many people


 (like

 me). I mean relation to libraries.

 Pls, don't get me wrong. I'm trust experienced people and I have my own


 head

 to make a decision. But take it into account...


 I understand. But the problem with me endorsing an 'official' gui is my


lack

 of experience with them. I wouldn't know a good gui if I tripped over it.


My

 preference would be the conservative approach and looking around for an
 existing and very successful portable gui with an appropriate license, and
 then translating it into D.


That's why we are here to help. Believe us Walter when we say "libraries
count". Actually, no matter how shitty the language is, it may succeed
purely on the strength of its libraries (*cough* Java *cough*).

We are here to help. I personally have tremendous experience with GUIs.
May 18 2004
parent "Blandger" <zeroman prominvest.com.ua> writes:
 I understand. But the problem with me endorsing an 'official' gui is my


 lack

 of experience with them. I wouldn't know a good gui if I tripped over




it.

 My

 preference would be the conservative approach and looking around for an
 existing and very successful portable gui with an appropriate license,




and

 then translating it into D.


 That's why we are here to help. Believe us Walter when we say "libraries
 count". Actually, no matter how shitty the language is, it may succeed
 purely on the strength of its libraries (*cough* Java *cough*).

 We are here to help. I personally have tremendous experience with GUIs.


Sure!!
May 20 2004
prev sibling parent reply Mark T <Mark_member pathlink.com> writes:
Why?  There are a lot of really good projects already in the works.  DUI 
and unDig work in the here and now.  About half of DWT successfully 
compiles now. (only 30k lines to go!)

 




Since there is rarely a post about DWT status, I think most newsgroup readers
might of thought it turned into abandonware.

Why Isn't DWT following some incremental approach like getting a dialog box with
a few controls working as a proof of concept? 

Is there a DWT website? Screenshots?
May 16 2004
next sibling parent J Anderson <REMOVEanderson badmama.com.au> writes:
Mark T wrote:


Why?  There are a lot of really good projects already in the works.  DUI 
and unDig work in the here and now.  About half of DWT successfully 
compiles now. (only 30k lines to go!)
    


Since there is rarely a post about DWT status, I think most newsgroup readers
might of thought it turned into abandonware.
  


These allot of activity on the DWT forum. http://www.dsource.org/forums/


Why Isn't DWT following some incremental approach like getting a dialog box with
a few controls working as a proof of concept? 

Is there a DWT website? Screenshots?


http://www.dsource.org/projects/dwt/?sec=overview

I don't think its that far complete yet.

-- 
-Anderson: http://badmama.com.au/~anderson/
May 16 2004
prev sibling parent J C Calvarese <jcc7 cox.net> writes:
Mark T wrote:

Why?  There are a lot of really good projects already in the works.  DUI 
and unDig work in the here and now.  About half of DWT successfully 
compiles now. (only 30k lines to go!)


 
 Since there is rarely a post about DWT status, I think most newsgroup readers
 might of thought it turned into abandonware.


DWT hasn't been abandoned. It's not working yet, but it's still in 
development.


 
 Why Isn't DWT following some incremental approach like getting a dialog box
with
 a few controls working as a proof of concept? 
 
 Is there a DWT website? Screenshots?


Forum:
http://www.dsource.org/forums/viewforum.php?f=1

Summary:
http://www.dsource.org/projects/dwt/


-- 
Justin (a/k/a jcc7)
http://jcc_7.tripod.com/d/
May 16 2004