www.digitalmars.com         C & C++   DMDScript  

digitalmars.D.learn - DFL is the best UIcontrols for D,compare it to dwt,

reply "FrankLike" <1150015857 qq.com> writes:
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
May 12 2014
next sibling parent reply Jacob Carlborg <doob me.com> writes:
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
May 12 2014
parent reply "FrankLike" <1150015857 qq.com> writes:
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.
May 12 2014
parent reply Jacob Carlborg <doob me.com> writes:
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
May 13 2014
parent reply "FrankLike" <1150015857 qq.com> writes:
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.
May 13 2014
parent reply Jacob Carlborg <doob me.com> writes:
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
May 13 2014
next sibling parent reply "jack death" <death aol.com> writes:
"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."

isn't that the truth. as much as i like D, i find it unusable for 
me, since i do not have a ui-/db-toolkit. i want to use the 
language, not invent everything every step or fight for it.
people here are sure smart and dedicated, but they develop very 
complex and badly documented/exampled libraries etc.

i think D will not pick up as much as the developer think since 
it does not offer the the small little things that make it 
possible to develop (by joe blow) software easily and fast.

i don't care for linux and complexity.

thank you all.
May 13 2014
parent reply "Gary Willoughby" <dev nomad.so> writes:
On Tuesday, 13 May 2014 at 20:42:11 UTC, jack death wrote:
 "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."
Tkd is finished. Gtk-D is finished. You aren't going to get very far unless you actually learn to use your tools, complex or not. Tkd is about as simple as it gets for GUI programming. Tkd-D is more complex but that's the price you pay for needing to create something more complex.
 isn't that the truth. as much as i like D, i find it unusable 
 for me, since i do not have a ui-/db-toolkit. i want to use the 
 language, not invent everything every step or fight for it.
You've obviously never looked. https://github.com/gtkd-developers/GtkD https://github.com/nomad-software/tkd https://github.com/rejectedsoftware/mysql-native http://dlang.org/phobos/etc_c_sqlite3.html https://github.com/adilbaig/Tiny-Redis http://www.wikiservice.at/d/wiki.cgi?DatabaseBindings
May 13 2014
parent "jack death" <jackdeath aol.com> writes:
well you are wrong. but it turns stomach to waste a lot of time
searching in a huge collection of projects that were started and
not finished. those are still advertised in a wiki.
nobody wants a collection of incomplete shambles - its
unfortunatly a huge turn off.
one does pay a price for complex thing - sure - no problem. but
do they work not just for x32, are they complete ...
D/phobos is regrettably still a tinkertoy collection for people
that have plenty of time.

i mean no offence, i am just disapointed of the overall usability
of it all.


On Tuesday, 13 May 2014 at 21:23:04 UTC, Gary Willoughby wrote:
 On Tuesday, 13 May 2014 at 20:42:11 UTC, jack death wrote:
 "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."
Tkd is finished. Gtk-D is finished. You aren't going to get very far unless you actually learn to use your tools, complex or not. Tkd is about as simple as it gets for GUI programming. Tkd-D is more complex but that's the price you pay for needing to create something more complex.
 isn't that the truth. as much as i like D, i find it unusable 
 for me, since i do not have a ui-/db-toolkit. i want to use 
 the language, not invent everything every step or fight for it.
You've obviously never looked. https://github.com/gtkd-developers/GtkD https://github.com/nomad-software/tkd https://github.com/rejectedsoftware/mysql-native http://dlang.org/phobos/etc_c_sqlite3.html https://github.com/adilbaig/Tiny-Redis http://www.wikiservice.at/d/wiki.cgi?DatabaseBindings
May 14 2014
prev sibling parent "FrankLike" <1150015857 qq.com> writes:
On Tuesday, 13 May 2014 at 19:02:03 UTC, Jacob Carlborg wrote:
 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.
|t is easy to support by modifing the baseButton for DFL,or add anew imageButton.
May 13 2014
prev sibling next sibling parent reply "thedeemon" <dlang thedeemon.com> writes:
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.
May 13 2014
parent reply "FrankLike" <1150015857 qq.com> writes:
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.
May 13 2014
next sibling parent reply "Suliman" <evermind live.ru> writes:
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.
May 13 2014
parent "FrankLike" <1150015857 qq.com> writes:
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?
May 13 2014
prev sibling parent reply "ed" <gmail gmail.com> writes:
On Tuesday, 13 May 2014 at 15:20:36 UTC, FrankLike wrote:
 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.
He's not joking, it is via wine. As for the DFL/DWT,GTK-d,TKd comparison you need to compare apples with apples. If you can improve DFL widgets so they: 1. support linux, windows, mac 2. support the same features as the "more complex" GUI widgets With the constraint that: 3. DFL uses less LOC and reduces code complexity comapred to GTK-d and DWT Then the comparison between DFL and other GUI libraries would be interesting. Cheers, ed
May 13 2014
parent reply "FrankLike" <1150015857 qq.com> writes:
On Tuesday, 13 May 2014 at 23:26:20 UTC, ed wrote:
 On Tuesday, 13 May 2014 at 15:20:36 UTC, FrankLike wrote:
 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.
He's not joking, it is via wine. As for the DFL/DWT,GTK-d,TKd comparison you need to compare apples with apples. If you can improve DFL widgets so they: 1. support linux, windows, mac 2. support the same features as the "more complex" GUI widgets With the constraint that: 3. DFL uses less LOC and reduces code complexity comapred to GTK-d and DWT Then the comparison between DFL and other GUI libraries would be interesting. Cheers, ed
Don't you want to look for the DFL's author Christopher E. Miller? 'DFL is Copyright (C) 2004-2010 Christopher E. Miller'
May 13 2014
parent "ed" <gmail gmail.com> writes:
On Wednesday, 14 May 2014 at 06:14:16 UTC, FrankLike wrote:
 On Tuesday, 13 May 2014 at 23:26:20 UTC, ed wrote:
 On Tuesday, 13 May 2014 at 15:20:36 UTC, FrankLike wrote:
 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.
He's not joking, it is via wine. As for the DFL/DWT,GTK-d,TKd comparison you need to compare apples with apples. If you can improve DFL widgets so they: 1. support linux, windows, mac 2. support the same features as the "more complex" GUI widgets With the constraint that: 3. DFL uses less LOC and reduces code complexity comapred to GTK-d and DWT Then the comparison between DFL and other GUI libraries would be interesting. Cheers, ed
Don't you want to look for the DFL's author Christopher E. Miller? 'DFL is Copyright (C) 2004-2010 Christopher E. Miller'
Not particularly as I am not that interested in DFL. But you can work on DFL without the author, i.e. make improvements, port to Linux or whatever you wish. http://dsource.org/projects/dfl/browser/trunk/win32/dfl/license.txt The DFL library is under a 3-choice license, pick one that suits you: LGPL, ZLIB, DFL license. Then go code :) Cheers, ed
May 14 2014
prev sibling parent reply "Dejan Lekic" <dejan.lekic gmail.com> writes:
 Although DFL not use on Linux or Mac os X,it's easy to do for 
 high level Software Engineer.
Well, go ahead and do it!
May 14 2014
parent "FrankLike" <1150015857 qq.com> writes:
On Wednesday, 14 May 2014 at 10:05:25 UTC, Dejan Lekic wrote:
 Although DFL not use on Linux or Mac os X,it's easy to do for 
 high level Software Engineer.
Well, go ahead and do it!
Don't you want to look for the DFL's author Christopher E. Miller? 'DFL is Copyright (C) 2004-2010 Christopher E. Miller
May 14 2014