www.digitalmars.com         C & C++   DMDScript  

digitalmars.D - Anomaly on Wiki4D GuiLibraries page

reply Stewart Gordon <smjg_1998 yahoo.com> writes:
http://www.prowiki.org/wiki4d/wiki.cgi?GuiLibraries

This page gives the standard D GUI library as being DWT, which is now a 
"Tango based port of  SWT v3.4 GUI Library + JFace and more".

Note "Tango based".  How can it be the standard D GUI library when it 
isn't compatible with standard D, i.e. D with Phobos?

Stewart.
Jan 14 2009
next sibling parent reply John Reimer <terminal.node gmail.com> writes:
Hello Stewart,


 http://www.prowiki.org/wiki4d/wiki.cgi?GuiLibraries
 
 This page gives the standard D GUI library as being DWT, which is now
 a "Tango based port of  SWT v3.4 GUI Library + JFace and more".
 
 Note "Tango based".  How can it be the standard D GUI library when it
 isn't compatible with standard D, i.e. D with Phobos?
 
 Stewart.
 



Good question.  I think the new dwt release just inherited (or hijacked) 
the title based on the release made by Shawn a couple of years ago which 
was Phobos compatible.

I suppose it would be fair to fix this on the wiki.  But, that said, Walter 
hasn't said otherwise yet. :)

-JJR
Jan 14 2009
parent reply Stewart Gordon <smjg_1998 yahoo.com> writes:
John Reimer wrote:
<snip>

 Good question.  I think the new dwt release just inherited (or hijacked) 
 the title based on the release made by Shawn a couple of years ago which 
 was Phobos compatible.


So effectively, the Phobos-based DWT is what was passed off as the 
"standard D GUI library", and when the Tango-based DWT came about, it 
was erroneously labelled as the new "standard D GUI library".  Really, 
while Tango DWT may have superseded Phobos DWT as being the DWT that's 
still actively maintained, Phobos DWT remains the SDGL.


 I suppose it would be fair to fix this on the wiki.  But, that said, 
 Walter hasn't said otherwise yet. :)


Done....

Stewart.
Jan 16 2009
next sibling parent reply =?UTF-8?B?QWxleGFuZGVyIFDDoW5law==?= writes:
Stewart Gordon wrote:

 Really, 
 while Tango DWT may have superseded Phobos DWT as being the DWT that's 
 still actively maintained, Phobos DWT remains the SDGL.


That’s a tremendously awesome idea. It’s at least as awesome as to keep 
the car with two blown tyres and no engine because it’s been declared 
the standard family vehicle by your grandfather a hundred decades ago.

*facepalm*
Jan 16 2009
parent reply Stewart Gordon <smjg_1998 yahoo.com> writes:
Alexander Pánek wrote:

 Stewart Gordon wrote:

 Really, while Tango DWT may have superseded Phobos DWT as being the 
 DWT that's still actively maintained, Phobos DWT remains the SDGL.


 
 That’s a tremendously awesome idea. It’s at least as awesome as to keep 
 the car with two blown tyres and no engine because it’s been declared 
 the standard family vehicle by your grandfather a hundred decades ago.


Which is indeed the right thing to do if it's the only car that your 
standard family can drive.

Stewart.
Jan 16 2009
parent John Reimer <terminal.node gmail.com> writes:
Hello Stewart,


 Alexander Pánek wrote:
 

 Stewart Gordon wrote:
 

 Really, while Tango DWT may have superseded Phobos DWT as being the
 DWT that's still actively maintained, Phobos DWT remains the SDGL.
 


 That’s a tremendously awesome idea. It’s at least as awesome as to
 keep the car with two blown tyres and no engine because it’s been
 declared the standard family vehicle by your grandfather a hundred
 decades ago.
 


 Which is indeed the right thing to do if it's the only car that your
 standard family can drive.
 
 Stewart.
 



May I ask if you've determined the old dwt is still "driveable" with current 
releases of dmd?  It may be, but I'm not sure if anyone has checked it in 
awhile.

-JJR
Jan 16 2009
prev sibling parent reply John Reimer <terminal.node gmail.com> writes:
Hello Stewart,


 John Reimer wrote:
 <snip>

 Good question.  I think the new dwt release just inherited (or
 hijacked) the title based on the release made by Shawn a couple of
 years ago which was Phobos compatible.
 


 So effectively, the Phobos-based DWT is what was passed off as the
 "standard D GUI library", and when the Tango-based DWT came about, it
 was erroneously labelled as the new "standard D GUI library".  Really,
 while Tango DWT may have superseded Phobos DWT as being the DWT that's
 still actively maintained, Phobos DWT remains the SDGL.
 



Yes, I'm afraid that about sums it up... yet, if I may add, with Walter's 
knowledge; so I think you jumped the gun by not consulting him first.  But 
I'm hoping, at the very least, that this discussion will remove any inhibitions 
that Walter may have in making a statement on the matter.  I honestly don't 
feel comfortable forcing a Tango-based library on Walter and having it capture 
the "standard" title. I agree that isn't fair, so I actually appreciate that 
the matter came up.



 I suppose it would be fair to fix this on the wiki.  But, that said,
 Walter hasn't said otherwise yet. :)
 


 Done....
 



You moved too fast for two reasons:

1)  The old dwt is basically abandoned.  You put it up at the top.  Don't 
you think you should put it under the abandoned group instead?  
2)  You don't have enough information to go on to make that change, unless 
you have dicussed this with Walter.  Maybe he doesn't want to recognize the 
old DWT as "standard" anymore, if it isn't actively developed.  Maybe neither 
library is "standard".

Based on that, your decisive move on the matter tends to look more hostile 
than helpful.

-JJR
Jan 16 2009
next sibling parent reply Bill Baxter <wbaxter gmail.com> writes:
On Sat, Jan 17, 2009 at 2:53 PM, John Reimer <terminal.node gmail.com> wrote:

 Hello Stewart,


 John Reimer wrote:
 <snip>

 Good question.  I think the new dwt release just inherited (or
 hijacked) the title based on the release made by Shawn a couple of
 years ago which was Phobos compatible.


 So effectively, the Phobos-based DWT is what was passed off as the
 "standard D GUI library", and when the Tango-based DWT came about, it
 was erroneously labelled as the new "standard D GUI library".  Really,
 while Tango DWT may have superseded Phobos DWT as being the DWT that's
 still actively maintained, Phobos DWT remains the SDGL.



 Yes, I'm afraid that about sums it up... yet, if I may add, with Walter's
 knowledge; so I think you jumped the gun by not consulting him first.  But
 I'm hoping, at the very least, that this discussion will remove any
 inhibitions that Walter may have in making a statement on the matter.  I
 honestly don't feel comfortable forcing a Tango-based library on Walter and
 having it capture the "standard" title. I agree that isn't fair, so I
 actually appreciate that the matter came up.



 I suppose it would be fair to fix this on the wiki.  But, that said,
 Walter hasn't said otherwise yet. :)


 Done....



 You moved too fast for two reasons:

 1)  The old dwt is basically abandoned.  You put it up at the top.  Don't
 you think you should put it under the abandoned group instead?  2)  You
 don't have enough information to go on to make that change, unless you have
 dicussed this with Walter.  Maybe he doesn't want to recognize the old DWT
 as "standard" anymore, if it isn't actively developed.  Maybe neither
 library is "standard".


Walter has commented that he noticed how any time he christens a
project as "standard" it seems to promptly die.  So I think he's very
reluctant to declare anything like that these days.  I doubt those
projects died because of him, but it also certainly didn't seem to
help the projects either, so there's not much point in it.

--bb
Jan 16 2009
parent John Reimer <terminal.node gmail.com> writes:
Hello Bill,


 On Sat, Jan 17, 2009 at 2:53 PM, John Reimer <terminal.node gmail.com>
 wrote:
 

 Hello Stewart,
 

 John Reimer wrote:
 <snip>

 Good question.  I think the new dwt release just inherited (or
 hijacked) the title based on the release made by Shawn a couple of
 years ago which was Phobos compatible.
 


 So effectively, the Phobos-based DWT is what was passed off as the
 "standard D GUI library", and when the Tango-based DWT came about,
 it was erroneously labelled as the new "standard D GUI library".
 Really, while Tango DWT may have superseded Phobos DWT as being the
 DWT that's still actively maintained, Phobos DWT remains the SDGL.
 


 Yes, I'm afraid that about sums it up... yet, if I may add, with
 Walter's knowledge; so I think you jumped the gun by not consulting
 him first.  But I'm hoping, at the very least, that this discussion
 will remove any inhibitions that Walter may have in making a
 statement on the matter.  I honestly don't feel comfortable forcing a
 Tango-based library on Walter and having it capture the "standard"
 title. I agree that isn't fair, so I actually appreciate that the
 matter came up.
 

 I suppose it would be fair to fix this on the wiki.  But, that
 said, Walter hasn't said otherwise yet. :)
 


 Done....
 


 You moved too fast for two reasons:
 
 1)  The old dwt is basically abandoned.  You put it up at the top.
 Don't you think you should put it under the abandoned group instead?
 2)  You don't have enough information to go on to make that change,
 unless you have dicussed this with Walter.  Maybe he doesn't want to
 recognize the old DWT as "standard" anymore, if it isn't actively
 developed.  Maybe neither library is "standard".
 


 Walter has commented that he noticed how any time he christens a
 project as "standard" it seems to promptly die.  So I think he's very
 reluctant to declare anything like that these days.  I doubt those
 projects died because of him, but it also certainly didn't seem to
 help the projects either, so there's not much point in it.
 
 --bb
 



I agree... it's a rather silly pursuit, perhaps.  It just gets kind of tiresome 
trying to argue whether it should or not.  It doesn't really matter.

-JJR
Jan 16 2009
prev sibling parent reply Stewart Gordon <smjg_1998 yahoo.com> writes:
John Reimer wrote:
<snip>

 2)  You don't have enough information to go on to make that change, 
 unless you have dicussed this with Walter.  Maybe he doesn't want to 
 recognize the old DWT as "standard" anymore, if it isn't actively 
 developed.  Maybe neither library is "standard".


<snip>

Maybe you're right.  But if Walter hasn't stripped Phobos DWT of its 
'standard' title, I think technically it still applies.  But it might be 
more practical to consider neither to be.

I guess what's really needed is for both DWTs to be maintained in 
parallel.  Or maybe merge into one DWT that's versioned for the two. 
Who has experience of writing dual-mode libraries like this?  (SDWF is 
dual-mode for D1 and D2; I'm guessing it could further be made 
triple-mode for Tango as well.  Even quadruple-mode once we have a Tango 
for D2.  Anyone fancy trying it?)

Stewart.
Jan 17 2009
next sibling parent reply =?UTF-8?B?QWxleGFuZGVyIFDDoW5law==?= writes:
Stewart Gordon wrote:

 John Reimer wrote:
 <snip>

 2)  You don't have enough information to go on to make that change, 
 unless you have dicussed this with Walter.  Maybe he doesn't want to 
 recognize the old DWT as "standard" anymore, if it isn't actively 
 developed.  Maybe neither library is "standard".


 <snip>
 
 Maybe you're right.  But if Walter hasn't stripped Phobos DWT of its 
 'standard' title, I think technically it still applies.  But it might be 
 more practical to consider neither to be.


Even though it technically still appears to be the declared standard 
GUI, it might be a bad idea to actually label it standard in a wiki. The 
project is dead. Guess why there has been another approach to this by 
other people.


 I guess what's really needed is for both DWTs to be maintained in 
 parallel.  Or maybe merge into one DWT that's versioned for the two. Who 
 has experience of writing dual-mode libraries like this?  (SDWF is 
 dual-mode for D1 and D2; I'm guessing it could further be made 
 triple-mode for Tango as well.  Even quadruple-mode once we have a Tango 
 for D2.  Anyone fancy trying it?)


I’m not sure this is technically feasable for such a big codebase.
Jan 17 2009
parent John Reimer <terminal.node gmail.com> writes:
Hello Alexander,


 Stewart Gordon wrote:
 

 John Reimer wrote:
 <snip>

 2)  You don't have enough information to go on to make that change,
 unless you have dicussed this with Walter.  Maybe he doesn't want to
 recognize the old DWT as "standard" anymore, if it isn't actively
 developed.  Maybe neither library is "standard".
 


 <snip>
 
 Maybe you're right.  But if Walter hasn't stripped Phobos DWT of its
 'standard' title, I think technically it still applies.  But it might
 be more practical to consider neither to be.
 


 Even though it technically still appears to be the declared standard
 GUI, it might be a bad idea to actually label it standard in a wiki.
 The project is dead. Guess why there has been another approach to this
 by other people.
 

 I guess what's really needed is for both DWTs to be maintained in
 parallel.  Or maybe merge into one DWT that's versioned for the two.
 Who has experience of writing dual-mode libraries like this?  (SDWF
 is dual-mode for D1 and D2; I'm guessing it could further be made
 triple-mode for Tango as well.  Even quadruple-mode once we have a
 Tango for D2.  Anyone fancy trying it?)
 


 I’m not sure this is technically feasable for such a big codebase.
 



In fact, that is so infeasible that I assumed he was being sarcastic. :)

-JJR
Jan 17 2009
prev sibling parent reply Don <nospam nospam.com> writes:
Stewart Gordon wrote:

 John Reimer wrote:
 <snip>

 2)  You don't have enough information to go on to make that change, 
 unless you have dicussed this with Walter.  Maybe he doesn't want to 
 recognize the old DWT as "standard" anymore, if it isn't actively 
 developed.  Maybe neither library is "standard".


 <snip>
 
 Maybe you're right.  But if Walter hasn't stripped Phobos DWT of its 
 'standard' title, I think technically it still applies.  But it might be 
 more practical to consider neither to be.


I don't think that it was _ever_ accepted as "the standard library". 
It's more that it was a proposed standard, and it died almost 
immediately after being proposed for standardisation.


 
 I guess what's really needed is for both DWTs to be maintained in 
 parallel.  Or maybe merge into one DWT that's versioned for the two. Who 
 has experience of writing dual-mode libraries like this?  (SDWF is 
 dual-mode for D1 and D2; I'm guessing it could further be made 
 triple-mode for Tango as well.  Even quadruple-mode once we have a Tango 
 for D2.  Anyone fancy trying it?)
 
 Stewart.
Jan 17 2009
parent reply John Reimer <terminal.node gmail.com> writes:
Hello Don,


 Stewart Gordon wrote:
 

 John Reimer wrote:
 <snip>

 2)  You don't have enough information to go on to make that change,
 unless you have dicussed this with Walter.  Maybe he doesn't want to
 recognize the old DWT as "standard" anymore, if it isn't actively
 developed.  Maybe neither library is "standard".
 


 <snip>
 
 Maybe you're right.  But if Walter hasn't stripped Phobos DWT of its
 'standard' title, I think technically it still applies.  But it might
 be more practical to consider neither to be.
 


 I don't think that it was _ever_ accepted as "the standard library".
 It's more that it was a proposed standard, and it died almost
 immediately after being proposed for standardisation.
 



That's also possible.  But then we have no idea since Walter didn't say
anything 
more about it.  It's all conjecture.


Also, here is the reason the project died soon after being proposed.  The 
reason it /looked/ like his "blessing" nixed the project was because he
proposed 
it before having communicated with the pototential developers to find out 
how involved/committed they were with the process.  Instead, he just announced 
it... and shocked a couple of us out of our skins :).   As far as I knew 
(since I was contributing to dwt at the time) none of us had enough
time/skill/energy 
to see the project through to completeion -- with the exception of Kris (and 
maybe a couple others) who had loads of skill but perhaps little time, since 
he was working hard on other important projects. We were mostly feeling things 
out in the background to see how far we could go with the idea. Meanwhile 
Kris had tried to help the process by contributing a Java to D converter 
that he had thrown together to automate as much of the SWT conversion as 
possible; he also convinced Walter to support internal classes and anonymous 
classes in DMD (I think; I can't remember which or both: Kris made many
important 
proposals based on practical stress-testing of the language/compiler some 
of which were ignored)... Also the compiler was still quite buggy making 
it sometimes exasperating to work on large projects like this one.  


Although there was some excitement behind the project, there was sizeable 
lack of motivation: it was very easy to get people interested in the idea, 
but practically impossible to find people who were willing to contribute 
to it (this is still the case with new dwt, but to a much lesser extent since 
the community has grown since then).  Unfortunately Walter gave his blessing 
without determining or knowing this.  When the project crashed after this, 
he apparently felt he had caused it to do so; he had not.   Thus, I don't 
blame Walter at all for its demise, although I think he would have avoided 
some of the pain if he had chatted with a few of us first.  Regardless, nobody 
lost completely on that one because, awhile later, Shawn Liu took up the 
guantlet from where we left off (which means he did a lot of work) and
completed 
the windows port.  It enjoyed success on that platform for a time, but never 
progressed to the cross-platform initiative.


Back to the present.  Again, it would be easier if we just fix this situation 
by changing the "dwt" newsgroup to "GUI" and forget about the reference to 
"standard" for now.  The time to "standardize" a GUI library is perhaps when 
a project has proven its survivability and popularity enough to warrant the 
title.  Even so, GUI's are going to be particularly controversial, so it 
may be wise for D to avoid standardizing any such thing for awhile.  Just 
as there are people that don't like the Tango "style" (a very /few/ people, 
of course ;) ), even so there are going to be people that don't like dwt.  


Finally, the original purpose of standardizing DWT was to help promote D. 
 I think both D and DWT have matured to the point that they can both achieve 
that purpose without resorting to "standardization" of a GUI.


-JJR
Jan 17 2009
parent reply Bill Baxter <wbaxter gmail.com> writes:
On Sun, Jan 18, 2009 at 6:46 AM, John Reimer <terminal.node gmail.com> wrote:

 Back to the present.  Again, it would be easier if we just fix this
 situation by changing the "dwt" newsgroup to "GUI" and forget about the
 reference to "standard" for now.


Ugh, that would be terrible.  I really don't care what troubles a GTKD
user is facing, and I'm sure that the GTKD user couldn't care less
what issues are hot in the DWT world.

Putting several different gui groups under one top-level gui heading
would be fine though.  I mean like
digitalmars.D.gui.{dwt,gtkd,qtd,...}.


 The time to "standardize" a GUI library is
 perhaps when a project has proven its survivability and popularity enough to
 warrant the title.  Even so, GUI's are going to be particularly
 controversial, so it may be wise for D to avoid standardizing any such thing
 for awhile.  Just as there are people that don't like the Tango "style" (a
 very /few/ people, of course ;) ), even so there are going to be people that
 don't like dwt.


With Python, they put wrappers for Tk into the standard distribution
long ago, and it's still the only one there AFAIK, but I don't think
it's all that popular any more.  wxPython, pyQt, and wxGTK have all
taken off since then and offer a lot more functionality.

Still it's nice to have a basic cross-platform GUI right there in the
standard distribution of the language.

--bb
Jan 17 2009
parent reply John Reimer <terminal.node gmail.com> writes:
Hello Bill,


 On Sun, Jan 18, 2009 at 6:46 AM, John Reimer <terminal.node gmail.com>
 wrote:
 

 Back to the present.  Again, it would be easier if we just fix this
 situation by changing the "dwt" newsgroup to "GUI" and forget about
 the reference to "standard" for now.
 


 Ugh, that would be terrible.  I really don't care what troubles a GTKD
 user is facing, and I'm sure that the GTKD user couldn't care less
 what issues are hot in the DWT world.
 



Maybe.  I was trying to be fair.  GTKD uses the dsource forums for the most 
part anyway.  Same goes for dfl and a few others.  On a few occasions, a 
GUI project has used the dwt newsgroup to make a few announcements.



 Putting several different gui groups under one top-level gui heading
 would be fine though.  I mean like
 digitalmars.D.gui.{dwt,gtkd,qtd,...}.
 




Sure.  But I doubt it's going to happen because who knows what kind of lifespan 
other GUI projects will have.  It was risky to do it so early for dwt.  I 
suppose if nobody cares if the space is used or not, then it's fine.




 The time to "standardize" a GUI library is
 perhaps when a project has proven its survivability and popularity
 enough to
 warrant the title.  Even so, GUI's are going to be particularly
 controversial, so it may be wise for D to avoid standardizing any
 such thing
 for awhile.  Just as there are people that don't like the Tango
 "style" (a
 very /few/ people, of course ;) ), even so there are going to be
 people that
 don't like dwt.


 With Python, they put wrappers for Tk into the standard distribution
 long ago, and it's still the only one there AFAIK, but I don't think
 it's all that popular any more.  wxPython, pyQt, and wxGTK have all
 taken off since then and offer a lot more functionality.
 



I think this will be the same problem for D.



 Still it's nice to have a basic cross-platform GUI right there in the
 standard distribution of the language.
 



If they agree to it... sure.  :)  Personally, I would rather have a very 
well defined package download system (like dsss was meant to be) that makes 
it easy for the user to install the library of his/her choice (like ruby 
gems).  Then integrate that system into something like descent so that a 
user can pick a choose from a list right from the IDE so that they can plug 
it right into their project.

It cuts down on the core package size and gives the developer a little more 
choice in the matter.  I suppose I'm revealing my dependency on dialup here. 
:)

-JJR
Jan 17 2009
parent reply Don <nospam nospam.com> writes:
John Reimer wrote:

 Hello Bill,
 

 On Sun, Jan 18, 2009 at 6:46 AM, John Reimer <terminal.node gmail.com>
 wrote:


 Back to the present.  Again, it would be easier if we just fix this
 situation by changing the "dwt" newsgroup to "GUI" and forget about
 the reference to "standard" for now.


 Ugh, that would be terrible.  I really don't care what troubles a GTKD
 user is facing, and I'm sure that the GTKD user couldn't care less
 what issues are hot in the DWT world.


 
 
 Maybe.  I was trying to be fair.  GTKD uses the dsource forums for the 
 most part anyway.  Same goes for dfl and a few others.  On a few 
 occasions, a GUI project has used the dwt newsgroup to make a few 
 announcements.
 
 

 Putting several different gui groups under one top-level gui heading
 would be fine though.  I mean like
 digitalmars.D.gui.{dwt,gtkd,qtd,...}.


 
 
 
 Sure.  But I doubt it's going to happen because who knows what kind of 
 lifespan other GUI projects will have.  It was risky to do it so early 
 for dwt.  I suppose if nobody cares if the space is used or not, then 
 it's fine.
 
 
 

 The time to "standardize" a GUI library is
 perhaps when a project has proven its survivability and popularity
 enough to
 warrant the title.  Even so, GUI's are going to be particularly
 controversial, so it may be wise for D to avoid standardizing any
 such thing
 for awhile.  Just as there are people that don't like the Tango
 "style" (a
 very /few/ people, of course ;) ), even so there are going to be
 people that
 don't like dwt.


 With Python, they put wrappers for Tk into the standard distribution
 long ago, and it's still the only one there AFAIK, but I don't think
 it's all that popular any more.  wxPython, pyQt, and wxGTK have all
 taken off since then and offer a lot more functionality.


 
 
 I think this will be the same problem for D.
 
 

 Still it's nice to have a basic cross-platform GUI right there in the
 standard distribution of the language.




Does DWT offer that yet? Certainly it didn't at the moment of 
'standardisation'.


 
 
 If they agree to it... sure.  :)  Personally, I would rather have a very 
 well defined package download system (like dsss was meant to be) that 
 makes it easy for the user to install the library of his/her choice 
 (like ruby gems).  Then integrate that system into something like 
 descent so that a user can pick a choose from a list right from the IDE 
 so that they can plug it right into their project.
 
 It cuts down on the core package size and gives the developer a little 
 more choice in the matter.  I suppose I'm revealing my dependency on 
 dialup here. :)
 
 -JJR
Jan 17 2009
next sibling parent John Reimer <terminal.node gmail.com> writes:
Hello Don,


 John Reimer wrote:
 

 Hello Bill,
 

 On Sun, Jan 18, 2009 at 6:46 AM, John Reimer
 <terminal.node gmail.com> wrote:
 

 Back to the present.  Again, it would be easier if we just fix this
 situation by changing the "dwt" newsgroup to "GUI" and forget about
 the reference to "standard" for now.
 


 Ugh, that would be terrible.  I really don't care what troubles a
 GTKD user is facing, and I'm sure that the GTKD user couldn't care
 less what issues are hot in the DWT world.
 


 Maybe.  I was trying to be fair.  GTKD uses the dsource forums for
 the most part anyway.  Same goes for dfl and a few others.  On a few
 occasions, a GUI project has used the dwt newsgroup to make a few
 announcements.
 

 Putting several different gui groups under one top-level gui heading
 would be fine though.  I mean like
 digitalmars.D.gui.{dwt,gtkd,qtd,...}.
 


 Sure.  But I doubt it's going to happen because who knows what kind
 of lifespan other GUI projects will have.  It was risky to do it so
 early for dwt.  I suppose if nobody cares if the space is used or
 not, then it's fine.
 

 The time to "standardize" a GUI library is
 perhaps when a project has proven its survivability and popularity
 enough to
 warrant the title.  Even so, GUI's are going to be particularly
 controversial, so it may be wise for D to avoid standardizing any
 such thing
 for awhile.  Just as there are people that don't like the Tango
 "style" (a
 very /few/ people, of course ;) ), even so there are going to be
 people that
 don't like dwt.


 With Python, they put wrappers for Tk into the standard distribution
 long ago, and it's still the only one there AFAIK, but I don't think
 it's all that popular any more.  wxPython, pyQt, and wxGTK have all
 taken off since then and offer a lot more functionality.
 


 I think this will be the same problem for D.
 

 Still it's nice to have a basic cross-platform GUI right there in
 the standard distribution of the language.
 




 Does DWT offer that yet? Certainly it didn't at the moment of
 'standardisation'.
 




DWT didn't even exist yet at the moment of "standardisation".  Though, I'm 
beginning to think it was all a distant dream and never really happened in 
the first place. :-D


-JJR
Jan 17 2009
prev sibling parent reply Bill Baxter <wbaxter gmail.com> writes:
On Sun, Jan 18, 2009 at 1:54 PM, Don <nospam nospam.com> wrote:

 John Reimer wrote:

 Still it's nice to have a basic cross-platform GUI right there in the
 standard distribution of the language.




 Does DWT offer that yet? Certainly it didn't at the moment of
 'standardisation'.


I don't think so.  It certainly doesn't have the "basic" part --  It's
a very full featured GUI toolkit.
And it also doesn't work with the library that ships with the
compiler, so those two things at least rule it out.

I was thinking of something more along the lines of a Tk wrapper or
maybe FLTK wrapper.

--bb
Jan 17 2009
parent Don <nospam nospam.com> writes:
Bill Baxter wrote:

 On Sun, Jan 18, 2009 at 1:54 PM, Don <nospam nospam.com> wrote:

 John Reimer wrote:

 Still it's nice to have a basic cross-platform GUI right there in the
 standard distribution of the language.




 Does DWT offer that yet? Certainly it didn't at the moment of
 'standardisation'.


 
 I don't think so.  It certainly doesn't have the "basic" part --  It's
 a very full featured GUI toolkit.
 And it also doesn't work with the library that ships with the
 compiler, so those two things at least rule it out.
 
 I was thinking of something more along the lines of a Tk wrapper or
 maybe FLTK wrapper.
 
 --bb


Yeah, that would be cool. C++ tried to get such a thing into C++0x, but 
it was too little, too late. The arguments for a small, built-in GUI are 
quite strong.
Jan 17 2009
prev sibling parent reply "Tim M" <a b.com> writes:
On Thu, 15 Jan 2009 13:25:39 +1300, Stewart Gordon <smjg_1998 yahoo.com>  
wrote:


 http://www.prowiki.org/wiki4d/wiki.cgi?GuiLibraries

 This page gives the standard D GUI library as being DWT, which is now a  
 "Tango based port of  SWT v3.4 GUI Library + JFace and more".

 Note "Tango based".  How can it be the standard D GUI library when it  
 isn't compatible with standard D, i.e. D with Phobos?

 Stewart.


Now that you brought the subject up I would just like to add my opinion on  
something which I've been meaning to say for a long time. I really  
disagree with the way that page describes the various options. It says  
standard d gui library and other d gui libraries. swt has the word  
standard in it's name but I dont see why dwt should be THE standard. It's  
brainwashing people into think that dwt is the best thing around.
Jan 14 2009
next sibling parent reply jcc7 <technocrat7 gmail.com> writes:
== Quote from Tim M (a b.com)'s article
...

 Now that you brought the subject up I would just like to add my
 opinion on something which I've been meaning to say for a long time.
 I really disagree with the way that page describes the various
 options. It says standard d gui library and other d gui libraries.
 swt has the word standard in it's name but I dont see why dwt should
 be THE standard. It's brainwashing people into think that dwt is the
 best thing around.


Have you read the referenced post?

http://www.digitalmars.com/webnews/newsgroups.php?
art_group=digitalmars.D&article_id=32633

I'm pretty sure that DWT is listed as standard on this page because
Walter, D's benevolent dictator, declared it was the standard.

Other issues (such as whether DWT should be the standard, whether it
should be noted so prominently on the wiki page, and whether there's
any brainwashing occurring) are still up for debate.

By the way, it's a wiki. If it's really gotten under your skin, you
can try to reorganize the page to improve it.

jcc7
Jan 15 2009
parent reply John Reimer <terminal.node gmail.com> writes:
Hello jcc7,



 Other issues (such as whether DWT should be the standard, whether it
 should be noted so prominently on the wiki page, and whether there's
 any brainwashing occurring) are still up for debate.
 



Our adoption of the original dwt newsgroup and project space was a move of 
convenience and simplification... and perhaps may have been perceived as 
somewhat opportunistic.   That's something I can't completely deny.  I've 
contributed a fair bit of time to management and organization (and source 
contribution) of several projects on dsource for the last 5 or so years. 
 Cleaning up the stagnating old dwt, and freshening the project page with 
the new seemed like a very natural move. 


Also, please understand that Walter was very encouraging of both the old 
and new DWT projects even though he had hoped to see a Phobos version for 
the new.  He appears to be well aware of the situation as far as I know and 
has communicated with Frank on a few occasions.  As far as I know, he hasn't 
let on either way about it's "standardness".


It is possible that the situation may be awkward for him because of the risk 
of discouraging something that showcases D (since it remains possibly the 
largest D project yet), despite its use of Tango.  I don't like the idea 
of putting him in such an awkward situation, so I very much hope he doesn't 
feel manipulated into supporting it as a "standard" gui.  I think it can 
showcase D quite well without that title.


However, I think that the complexity of the situation is inevitable because 
it originates from the Tango/Phobos issue.  For us, a Phobos port just isn't 
so simple because we've made use of many Tango conveniences that Phobos just 
doesn't provide.  Also we didn't want to work at maintaining two core libraries 
in DWT, a project that, in itself, requires a fair bit of work to update, 
debug, and maintain on multiple platforms.  Consider that it supports two 
platforms with possibility of a third (in development); and there are only 
two main maintainers and several contributers (a third maintainer/developer 
works on the mac port).  If we ever get it working on ldc, we end up not 
only having to support multiple platforms, but also multiple compilers with 
there subtle differences.  Things get ugly almost exponentially this way, 
so we're not looking for ways to make the process more difficult.


-JJR
Jan 16 2009
parent reply jcc7 <technocrat7 gmail.com> writes:
== Quote from John Reimer (terminal.node gmail.com)'s article
...

 Our adoption of the original dwt newsgroup and project space was a
 move of convenience and simplification... and perhaps may have been
 perceived as somewhat opportunistic.   That's something I can't
 completely deny.  I've contributed a fair bit of time to management
 and organization (and source contribution) of several projects on
 dsource for the last 5 or so years.
  Cleaning up the stagnating old dwt, and freshening the project page
 with the new seemed like a very natural move.


John,

I hope you didn't feel that I was trying to disparage your efforts (or
the efforts of anyone else in the new DWT or old DWT team). That was
not my intention at all. I was under the impression that the original
DWT program ran out of steam, and I liked that a team had revived the
project and made more progress.

As far as the Tango issue goes, I'm hoping that in the future Tango
becomes an extra package that can be installed next to Phobos (e.g.
how Mango used to be). I think that would lead to a lot less
controversy.

I think the primary intention of my post was to remind people that
Walter had placed a stamp of approval on DWT, and I think that was all
the page was trying to denote with "official". My comment about
"brainwashing" was an attempt to admit that there are many people with
different ideas about what the best GUI library is.

By the way, the archived revision list in Wiki4D for
AvailableGuiLibraries (the old name for the page) seems to indicate
that I was the one who added the note about DWT being "official" on February
10, 2006. (It looks like it took a while before it became
controversial.) If people are interested, they can look at these
pages:
 * http://www.prowiki.org/wiki4d/wiki.cgi?
action=archive&cmd=list&id=AvailableGuiLibraries
 * http://www.prowiki.org/wiki4d/wiki.cgi?
action=archive&cmd=diff&version=1.47&id=AvailableGuiLibraries
Jan 20 2009
parent John Reimer <terminal.node gmail.com> writes:
Hello jcc7,


 == Quote from John Reimer (terminal.node gmail.com)'s article ...
 

 Our adoption of the original dwt newsgroup and project space was a
 move of convenience and simplification... and perhaps may have been
 perceived as somewhat opportunistic.   That's something I can't
 completely deny.  I've contributed a fair bit of time to management
 and organization (and source contribution) of several projects on
 dsource for the last 5 or so years.
 Cleaning up the stagnating old dwt, and freshening the project page
 with the new seemed like a very natural move.


 John,
 
 I hope you didn't feel that I was trying to disparage your efforts (or
 the efforts of anyone else in the new DWT or old DWT team). That was
 not my intention at all. I was under the impression that the original
 DWT program ran out of steam, and I liked that a team had revived the
 project and made more progress.
 
 As far as the Tango issue goes, I'm hoping that in the future Tango
 becomes an extra package that can be installed next to Phobos (e.g.
 how Mango used to be). I think that would lead to a lot less
 controversy.
 
 I think the primary intention of my post was to remind people that
 Walter had placed a stamp of approval on DWT, and I think that was all
 the page was trying to denote with "official". My comment about
 "brainwashing" was an attempt to admit that there are many people with
 different ideas about what the best GUI library is.
 
 By the way, the archived revision list in Wiki4D for
 AvailableGuiLibraries (the old name for the page) seems to indicate
 that I was the one who added the note about DWT being "official" on
 February 10, 2006. (It looks like it took a while before it became
 controversial.) If people are interested, they can look at these
 pages:
 * http://www.prowiki.org/wiki4d/wiki.cgi?
 action=archive&cmd=list&id=AvailableGuiLibraries
 * http://www.prowiki.org/wiki4d/wiki.cgi?
 action=archive&cmd=diff&version=1.47&id=AvailableGuiLibraries




Thanks, Justin.  Your comments are always welcome.   


I wasn't necessarily responding to you alone on this one.  Sometimes I just 
get caught up in expressing my opinion maybe a little too thoroughly. :)


I appreciate your views on these matters. 


-JJR
Jan 20 2009
prev sibling next sibling parent reply John Reimer <terminal.node gmail.com> writes:
Hello tim,


 On Thu, 15 Jan 2009 13:25:39 +1300, Stewart Gordon
 <smjg_1998 yahoo.com>  wrote:
 

 http://www.prowiki.org/wiki4d/wiki.cgi?GuiLibraries
 
 This page gives the standard D GUI library as being DWT, which is now
 a  "Tango based port of  SWT v3.4 GUI Library + JFace and more".
 
 Note "Tango based".  How can it be the standard D GUI library when it
 isn't compatible with standard D, i.e. D with Phobos?
 
 Stewart.
 


 Now that you brought the subject up I would just like to add my
 opinion on  something which I've been meaning to say for a long time.
 I really  disagree with the way that page describes the various
 options. It says  standard d gui library and other d gui libraries.
 swt has the word  standard in it's name but I dont see why dwt should
 be THE standard. It's  brainwashing people into think that dwt is the
 best thing around.
 



Well, the reason dwt has adopted the "standard" title kind of goes back to 
the days when we were looking to have a complete GUI to promote D; there 
just wasn't much offering in that area before.  DWT development was encouraged 
back then by Walter, and, as you can see, he even made a newsgroup entry 
for it. 

DWT might not be the best thing around, but I don't think it's not going 
too far to say that it is the most comprehensive GUI developed /in/ D so 
far.  

As time goes on, this may change (which can only be a good thing as options 
improve) as more projects arrive for more platforms.

Personally, I think we're at a point in D's life where we don't need to call 
it standard.  Maybe it would be better to have a newsgroup called "GUI"
instead. 
 I'm  not sure.

-JJR
Jan 15 2009
parent reply "Tim M" <a b.com> writes:
On Fri, 16 Jan 2009 04:08:28 +1300, John Reimer <terminal.node gmail.com>  
wrote:


 ...............
 Personally, I think we're at a point in D's life where we don't need to  
 call it standard.  Maybe it would be better to have a newsgroup called  
 "GUI" instead.  I'm  not sure.

 -JJR


That sounds more fair. Incase you were interested in why I don't like dwt,  
it is part because it makes my small apps huge and part because I've  
struggled with it in the past to get icon resource to work correctly. I  
think it is still only good for java and if I try to go back I will then  
run into more problems.
Jan 15 2009
parent John Reimer <terminal.node gmail.com> writes:
Hello tim,


 On Fri, 16 Jan 2009 04:08:28 +1300, John Reimer
 <terminal.node gmail.com>  wrote:
 

 ...............
 Personally, I think we're at a point in D's life where we don't need
 to
 call it standard.  Maybe it would be better to have a newsgroup
 called
 "GUI" instead.  I'm  not sure.
 -JJR
 


 That sounds more fair. Incase you were interested in why I don't like
 dwt,  it is part because it makes my small apps huge and part because
 I've  struggled with it in the past to get icon resource to work
 correctly. I  think it is still only good for java and if I try to go
 back I will then  run into more problems.
 



Well, I hear what you are saying about the apps being rather large.  But 
then, if we compared it to other GUI libraries, much of the size issue of 
DWT is probably more due to perception.  What I mean to say is that DWT static 
links everything right now, which causes the executable to look large.  Other 
GUI libraries might change your perception of their bloat by dynamic linking 
with their framework.  DWT (eventually) could do the same and perhaps achieve 
more success impressing people with a dwt application's slim figure too. :)  

DWT is a fairly comprehensive library.  Just recently, I've ported over a 
(mozilla/XPCOM) browser control for the linux version (windows version in 
the works).  It's rare for a large framework to have all the goodies and 
a small executalbe size.  You'll have to try DFL or FLTK (fltk is actually 
bindings only) for that... and the compromise will likely give you far less.

So, maybe have a look at wxwidgets and qt, libraries that are very
full-featured, 
and see if these are able to make small programs... if they are... then have 
a look for the large dynamic library(s) and see how big they are. :)

What this means ultimately is that DWT should be available in a shared library 
version.  This has kind of already been demonstrated with DWT and ddl, but 
so far nothing user friendly is immediately available.  Hopefully, someday 
we can do something about that.

Sorry to hear you had problems with it.  Please feel free to post in the 
dwt newsgroup if you need help. 

-JJR
Jan 15 2009
prev sibling parent reply Piotrek <starpit tlen.pl> writes:
Tim M wrote:

 It's brainwashing people into think that dwt is the best thing around.


IMHO, It's better then anything around. It works on Linux/Windows and is 
easy to use. There's only one competitor named gtkD, but... the button 
usage example from the project site with such a nice line of code:
char** names = (new char*[2]).ptr;
just doesn't look D-style for me.

Cheers
Jan 15 2009
parent Mike Wey <mike-wey example.com> writes:
Piotrek wrote:

 Tim M wrote:

 It's brainwashing people into think that dwt is the best thing around.


 
 IMHO, It's better then anything around. It works on Linux/Windows and is 
 easy to use. There's only one competitor named gtkD, but... the button 
 usage example from the project site with such a nice line of code:
 char** names = (new char*[2]).ptr;
 just doesn't look D-style for me.
 
 Cheers


That should have been updated with the last release, setAuthors uses a 
string[] now.

I've changed the Example: 
http://dsource.org/projects/gtkd/wiki/CodeExamples?action=diff&version=12

--
Mike Wey
Jan 16 2009