www.digitalmars.com         C & C++   DMDScript  

digitalmars.D - Basic GUI functionality in the D language

reply "TechnoZeus" <TechnoZeus PeoplePC.com> writes:
Okay, in a previous discussion I noticed that a lot of people feel that having
basic GUI functionality
built into a language is simply too much to ask for.  Perhaps it is, and
perhaps it's not.  In the case of
the D language, I guess Walter would be the one to decide, but I'm rather sure
that he won't even
consider it unless he sees a significant amount of intertest, so if you are
interested... here's your chance to show it.

If it were POSSIBLE, would anyone here besides me "like to see" basic GUI
functionality
built into the D language so Graphical User Interface type or Form type objects
would be
as easy to put into a program as functions are now?

PLEASE give at least a short affirmation if you would like to see this happen,
even if you think it can't be done!
(More detailed descriptions of how or why you would like to see it happen are
strongly encouraged.)

TZ
May 30 2005
next sibling parent reply =?ISO-8859-1?Q?Anders_F_Bj=F6rklund?= <afb algonet.se> writes:
TechnoZeus wrote:

 If it were POSSIBLE, would anyone here besides me "like to see" basic GUI
functionality
 built into the D language so Graphical User Interface type or Form type
objects would be
 as easy to put into a program as functions are now?

Maybe I'm not following, but did you want GUI in the language - or in the standard libraries ? (Walter has said that it won't be in Phobos) Or are we talking some new types or such changes that are needed ? For some reason I got an image of this giant turtle in my head... --anders
May 30 2005
parent reply "TechnoZeus" <TechnoZeus PeoplePC.com> writes:
"Anders F Björklund" <afb algonet.se> wrote in message
news:d7g1hb$312r$1 digitaldaemon.com...
 TechnoZeus wrote:

 If it were POSSIBLE, would anyone here besides me "like to see" basic GUI
functionality
 built into the D language so Graphical User Interface type or Form type
objects would be
 as easy to put into a program as functions are now?

Maybe I'm not following, but did you want GUI in the language - or in the standard libraries ? (Walter has said that it won't be in Phobos) Or are we talking some new types or such changes that are needed ? For some reason I got an image of this giant turtle in my head... --anders

I would like to se support for GUI type application development built into the language. That can mean many things, and I'm not real picky about exactly which one is chosen, but here's an example. Imagine a built in menu type that can do things like: store menu items and keyboard shortcuts, display the menu items, get a menu selection, or trigger a menu event. Where, when, and how the menu is displayed would depend on a number of factors including whether the application is console of GUI based, and how the menu object is used in the program... but "some" ability to use it would be again, built into the language. I'm not asking to have every concievable GUI related object or event covered by the core of the language... just the basics. TZ
May 31 2005
parent reply =?ISO-8859-1?Q?Anders_F_Bj=F6rklund?= <afb algonet.se> writes:
TechnoZeus wrote:

Or are we talking some new types or such changes that are needed ?
For some reason I got an image of this giant turtle in my head...

I would like to se support for GUI type application development built into the language. That can mean many things, and I'm not real picky about exactly which one is chosen, but here's an example. Imagine a built in menu type that can do things like: store menu items and keyboard shortcuts, display the menu items, get a menu selection, or trigger a menu event. Where, when, and how the menu is displayed would depend on a number of factors including whether the application is console of GUI based, and how the menu object is used in the program... but "some" ability to use it would be again, built into the language.

But wouldn't a class (OOP) or struct be enough to do that too ? To build user interfaces here, I use a special GUI program to do it. The programming language is mostly used to define any callbacks... I recall building Java applications with AWT, before there were any graphical editors or Swing, and it was rather tedious to do. It would be nice if import modules for something like SDL and OpenGL, or wrappers for GTK+ and SWT whatever was added to the D libraries... But if Walter has said that he doesn't want it in Phobos, it probably won't be ? There are already several third-party libs to choose from. Something like MinWin will be enough for me, as far as I am using D. --anders
May 31 2005
parent Trevor Parscal <Trevor_member pathlink.com> writes:
I officially change any position I ever implied about having any kind of GUI
related features in the core language, or phobos.

WE should be creating and perfecting cross platform GUI frameworks in D,
eventually completly instead of just binding everything to C, and
www.dsource.org is the place for them, and people shouldn't be forced to
download them in the core libraries...

Let Walter do what he does best, and we can make things with D that get the GUI
and other non-core language things done.

My new perspective after a bad night's sleep... Nightmares of access violations
and poorly formatted code.. :(

Thanks,
Trevor Parscal
www.trevorparscal.com
trevorparscal hotmail.com
May 31 2005
prev sibling next sibling parent reply Derek Parnell <derek psych.ward> writes:
On Mon, 30 May 2005 16:18:05 -0500, TechnoZeus wrote:

 Okay, in a previous discussion I noticed that a lot of people feel that having
basic GUI functionality
 built into a language is simply too much to ask for.  Perhaps it is, and
perhaps it's not.  In the case of
 the D language, I guess Walter would be the one to decide, but I'm rather sure
that he won't even
 consider it unless he sees a significant amount of intertest, so if you are
interested... here's your chance to show it.
 
 If it were POSSIBLE, would anyone here besides me "like to see" basic GUI
functionality
 built into the D language so Graphical User Interface type or Form type
objects would be
 as easy to put into a program as functions are now?

In order to achieve this, the language would need to be extended with new keywords and/or programming constructs that are specific to the programming task.
 PLEASE give at least a short affirmation if you would like to see this happen,
even if you think it can't be done!
 (More detailed descriptions of how or why you would like to see it happen are
strongly encouraged.)

NO! I do not want the "D Programming Language" to contain any keywords or constructs that are specific to User Interface programming. This is a form of 'hard coding' that causes restrictions for future coders. Such abilities are best served by libraries. The library code can be written in 'low level' (read: 'standard'), generic D language. High level functionality in general is much more flexible, and cost-effective, if contained in libraries rather than built into the syntax of a language. Because of the inherent complexity and scope of high-level functionality, it tends to need continuous improvements over time. If these ideas were embedded into the syntax of a language, it makes it extremely difficult to add new concepts to it and to remove outdated ones. Imagine if C had keywords in it that dealt with teletype machines, punched cards and paper tape. These would be useless at some stage, but who could decide exactly when and how? The use of libraries has made this much more cost-effective to handle because it can cope with generic concepts rather than 'hard coded' ones. -- Derek Parnell Melbourne, Australia 31/05/2005 7:43:42 AM
May 30 2005
next sibling parent reply Larry Cowan <Larry_member pathlink.com> writes:
My vote:

Please do not build a GUI into the language ever.  no no no  The adaptability of
an accepted language is too restricted to include things we know will change, be
done better, and follow fads.  

Please help develop a GUI library if you need one.  A standard one would be a
great thing, short of that a good commonly usable wrapper for any open platform
GUI would suffice to get things moving.  But don't expect either the standard or
GUI niceties in general to stay fixed in place - its a moving target.

Lots of things are useful but don't belong in the language even though they
should be available to programmers using them.  They belong as add-ons available
competitively for both efficiency and freedom of change reasons. 

No matter that I love to use them, I'm not even sure associative arrays should
have a fixed hidden implementation - for simple uses sure, so I like them, but
other implementations for larger, more specific purposes should/will be
available later in a library, I hope.  Why not built-in linked lists?  Because
its a job for a template or class library, not the core language when so many
implementations (class or struct) may be appropriate.
May 30 2005
parent "Rolf Tollerud" <rolftollerud msn.com> writes:
 Please do not build a GUI into the language ever.  no no no  The 
 adaptability of
 an accepted language is too restricted to include things we know will 
 change, be
 done better, and follow fads.

Presicly. With built-in GUI we would not have neither the excellent DFL or the amazing Harmonia. GUI is cutthroat competition and must follow the latest fashion! You don't use sun-glasses from last year do you?
May 30 2005
prev sibling parent reply "TechnoZeus" <TechnoZeus PeoplePC.com> writes:
"Derek Parnell" <derek psych.ward> wrote in message
news:1n5i1mx2rwnp3.mei52nu9f35q$.dlg 40tude.net...
 On Mon, 30 May 2005 16:18:05 -0500, TechnoZeus wrote:

 Okay, in a previous discussion I noticed that a lot of people feel that having
basic GUI functionality
 built into a language is simply too much to ask for.  Perhaps it is, and
perhaps it's not.  In the case of
 the D language, I guess Walter would be the one to decide, but I'm rather sure
that he won't even
 consider it unless he sees a significant amount of intertest, so if you are
interested... here's your chance to show it.

 If it were POSSIBLE, would anyone here besides me "like to see" basic GUI
functionality
 built into the D language so Graphical User Interface type or Form type
objects would be
 as easy to put into a program as functions are now?

In order to achieve this, the language would need to be extended with new keywords and/or programming constructs that are specific to the programming task.
 PLEASE give at least a short affirmation if you would like to see this happen,
even if you think it can't be done!
 (More detailed descriptions of how or why you would like to see it happen are
strongly encouraged.)

NO! I do not want the "D Programming Language" to contain any keywords or constructs that are specific to User Interface programming. This is a form of 'hard coding' that causes restrictions for future coders. Such abilities are best served by libraries. The library code can be written in 'low level' (read: 'standard'), generic D language. High level functionality in general is much more flexible, and cost-effective, if contained in libraries rather than built into the syntax of a language. Because of the inherent complexity and scope of high-level functionality, it tends to need continuous improvements over time. If these ideas were embedded into the syntax of a language, it makes it extremely difficult to add new concepts to it and to remove outdated ones. Imagine if C had keywords in it that dealt with teletype machines, punched cards and paper tape. These would be useless at some stage, but who could decide exactly when and how? The use of libraries has made this much more cost-effective to handle because it can cope with generic concepts rather than 'hard coded' ones. -- Derek Parnell Melbourne, Australia 31/05/2005 7:43:42 AM

That is absolutely NOT what I was asking, nor what I said. I said nothing of hard coding in restrictions. What I am talking about is added support for things that are commonly done. You might just as well have said you don't want integer types in D because they are integer math specific and would therefore restrict programs to only non-floating-point math. TZ
May 31 2005
parent Derek Parnell <derek psych.ward> writes:
On Tue, 31 May 2005 03:21:23 -0500, TechnoZeus wrote:

 "Derek Parnell" <derek psych.ward> wrote in message
news:1n5i1mx2rwnp3.mei52nu9f35q$.dlg 40tude.net...
 On Mon, 30 May 2005 16:18:05 -0500, TechnoZeus wrote:

 Okay, in a previous discussion I noticed that a lot of people feel that having
basic GUI functionality
 built into a language is simply too much to ask for.  Perhaps it is, and
perhaps it's not.  In the case of
 the D language, I guess Walter would be the one to decide, but I'm rather sure
that he won't even
 consider it unless he sees a significant amount of intertest, so if you are
interested... here's your chance to show it.

 If it were POSSIBLE, would anyone here besides me "like to see" basic GUI
functionality
 built into the D language so Graphical User Interface type or Form type
objects would be
 as easy to put into a program as functions are now?

In order to achieve this, the language would need to be extended with new keywords and/or programming constructs that are specific to the programming task.
 PLEASE give at least a short affirmation if you would like to see this happen,
even if you think it can't be done!
 (More detailed descriptions of how or why you would like to see it happen are
strongly encouraged.)

NO! I do not want the "D Programming Language" to contain any keywords or constructs that are specific to User Interface programming. This is a form of 'hard coding' that causes restrictions for future coders. Such abilities are best served by libraries. The library code can be written in 'low level' (read: 'standard'), generic D language. High level functionality in general is much more flexible, and cost-effective, if contained in libraries rather than built into the syntax of a language. Because of the inherent complexity and scope of high-level functionality, it tends to need continuous improvements over time. If these ideas were embedded into the syntax of a language, it makes it extremely difficult to add new concepts to it and to remove outdated ones. Imagine if C had keywords in it that dealt with teletype machines, punched cards and paper tape. These would be useless at some stage, but who could decide exactly when and how? The use of libraries has made this much more cost-effective to handle because it can cope with generic concepts rather than 'hard coded' ones. -- Derek Parnell Melbourne, Australia 31/05/2005 7:43:42 AM

That is absolutely NOT what I was asking, nor what I said.

I have been known to misunderstand people before and maybe I've done it again. Please bear with me. I believe that one of your questions was ... "If it were POSSIBLE, would anyone here besides me "like to see" basic GUI functionality built into the D language so Graphical User Interface type or Form type objects would be as easy to put into a program as functions are now?" To this question I responded in the negative so that you can see that I was not one who'd like to see this happen. I thought it necessary for you to have an impression of both sides of the argument. If you only heard 'yes' then you might be tempted into think that there are no 'no' opinions.
 I said nothing of hard coding in restrictions.

This is totally true. At no time have you ever said those words. I was putting words into your mouth. But let me tell you why I did this... You used the phrase "basic ... functionality built into the D language so ... would be as easy to put into a program as functions are now" which talks about functionality built into the language but not in the form of functions. I can only speculate on then what that form might take, if we are not talking about functions. I guessed you were thinking of special tokens (i.e. keywords) that the compiler would recognize and convert into the appropriate object code to implement the GUI functionality. If you could give us some examples of the thing you are thinking of, maybe I'd have a better idea of what it is you are proposing. But in the meantime, I'll assume that you are asking for new keywords for the language. And I want to emphasize that its the *language* itself you are talking about and not libraries that happen to be written in the D language.
 What I am talking about is added support for things that are commonly done.

Yes, I know that. But the format you seem to be suggesting (i.e. new keywords) is my point of objection. I have absolutely no problem with such support being added in the form of callable library functions and/or classes.
 You might just as well have said you don't want integer types in D because
they are integer math specific
 and would therefore restrict programs to only non-floating-point math.

I disagree. Integers are a universal concept that is not likely to require multiple implementations nor be outdated anytime soon. If however, we had keywords in D that referred to a Pointer device (eg. a Mouse), it would be constrained to the technologies we currently know about. But what would happen when somebody invents a pressure-sensitive mouse that allows us to operate in 3D on our holographic display device? You also mention "basic GUI functionality". Define "basic". The paradigms of the various existing GUI systems are all slightly different and they all implement their models in slightly different ways too. So is "basic" then the common set for existing functionality? How low-level do we get? How high-level do we get? How do we extend the language to use new technologies? How do we retire keywords for which there are no longer any technologies? The idea that the language itself needs to be extended to support basic GUI is a costly one. This support is better delivered via libraries. You and others have hinted that the compiler might need some improvement in how it can 'automate' references to library entities in order that coders do not have to remember which 'import' to use for which function or class. I see that there could be some merit in exploring that idea. This could then give a coder the illusion that the language has been extended when in fact it is only using library code. I am not resisting change because it is 'change' per se, but I'm resisting the specific form of change that you are proposing. I too believe that writing a GUI application must be made many orders of magnitude easier than is currently available in D. -- Derek Parnell Melbourne, Australia 31/05/2005 9:38:32 PM
May 31 2005
prev sibling next sibling parent Hasan Aljudy <hasan.aljudy gmail.com> writes:
TechnoZeus wrote:
 Okay, in a previous discussion I noticed that a lot of people feel that having
basic GUI functionality
 built into a language is simply too much to ask for.  Perhaps it is, and
perhaps it's not.  In the case of
 the D language, I guess Walter would be the one to decide, but I'm rather sure
that he won't even
 consider it unless he sees a significant amount of intertest, so if you are
interested... here's your chance to show it.
 
 If it were POSSIBLE, would anyone here besides me "like to see" basic GUI
functionality
 built into the D language so Graphical User Interface type or Form type
objects would be
 as easy to put into a program as functions are now?
 
 PLEASE give at least a short affirmation if you would like to see this happen,
even if you think it can't be done!
 (More detailed descriptions of how or why you would like to see it happen are
strongly encouraged.)
 
 TZ
 
 

Sorry, I vote no. GUI's are not part of programming, they are implementations or applications. (I can't quite find the correct term) GUIs are not programming constructs, and there is no one thing that "GUI" refers to. "GUI" is such an abstract notion that there are tons of different implementations of it. Asking for GUI as part of the language is like asking for a game engine as part of the language. It just doesn't work with my philosophy of what programming languages are. I mean, what the hell do you mean by building GUI into D? It's not like "GUI" is some "concrete" thing. It's a very abstract notion.
May 30 2005
prev sibling next sibling parent reply "Andrew Fedoniouk" <news terrainformatica.com> writes:
IMHO, D already has everything for successfull GUI implementations.
And I cannot recall any programming language which has UI specific features.
What are they, BTW?

Andrew.


"TechnoZeus" <TechnoZeus PeoplePC.com> wrote in message 
news:d7g05c$2vsa$1 digitaldaemon.com...
 Okay, in a previous discussion I noticed that a lot of people feel that 
 having basic GUI functionality
 built into a language is simply too much to ask for.  Perhaps it is, and 
 perhaps it's not.  In the case of
 the D language, I guess Walter would be the one to decide, but I'm rather 
 sure that he won't even
 consider it unless he sees a significant amount of intertest, so if you 
 are interested... here's your chance to show it.

 If it were POSSIBLE, would anyone here besides me "like to see" basic GUI 
 functionality
 built into the D language so Graphical User Interface type or Form type 
 objects would be
 as easy to put into a program as functions are now?

 PLEASE give at least a short affirmation if you would like to see this 
 happen, even if you think it can't be done!
 (More detailed descriptions of how or why you would like to see it happen 
 are strongly encouraged.)

 TZ

 

May 30 2005
parent reply Derek Parnell <derek psych.ward> writes:
On Mon, 30 May 2005 20:51:11 -0700, Andrew Fedoniouk wrote:

 IMHO, D already has everything for successfull GUI implementations.
 And I cannot recall any programming language which has UI specific features.
 What are they, BTW?

Various forms of BASIC, COBOL, Logo. -- Derek Melbourne, Australia 31/05/2005 2:37:59 PM
May 30 2005
next sibling parent =?ISO-8859-1?Q?Anders_F_Bj=F6rklund?= <afb algonet.se> writes:
Derek Parnell wrote:

And I cannot recall any programming language which has UI specific features.
What are they, BTW?

Various forms of BASIC, COBOL, Logo.

Here is a pretty neat idea: http://www.basic4gl.net/ And there will always be Turtle Graphics, of course. None of them is like D. --anders
May 30 2005
prev sibling parent reply "Andrew Fedoniouk" <news terrainformatica.com> writes:
"Derek Parnell" <derek psych.ward> wrote in message 
news:1gn1fmonnlgkr$.ea5af7p59l9c$.dlg 40tude.net...
 On Mon, 30 May 2005 20:51:11 -0700, Andrew Fedoniouk wrote:

 IMHO, D already has everything for successfull GUI implementations.
 And I cannot recall any programming language which has UI specific 
 features.
 What are they, BTW?

Various forms of BASIC, COBOL, Logo.

Probably I missed something... Derek, are you speaking about language constructions or about runtimes? I suppose question was about laguage features....
May 31 2005
parent Derek Parnell <derek psych.ward> writes:
On Tue, 31 May 2005 15:46:49 -0700, Andrew Fedoniouk wrote:

 "Derek Parnell" <derek psych.ward> wrote in message 
 news:1gn1fmonnlgkr$.ea5af7p59l9c$.dlg 40tude.net...
 On Mon, 30 May 2005 20:51:11 -0700, Andrew Fedoniouk wrote:

 IMHO, D already has everything for successfull GUI implementations.
 And I cannot recall any programming language which has UI specific 
 features.
 What are they, BTW?

Various forms of BASIC, COBOL, Logo.

Probably I missed something... Derek, are you speaking about language constructions or about runtimes? I suppose question was about laguage features....

I was thinking of language features, that is, keywords recognised by the compiler that specifically dealt with User Interface programming. I can also add the Progress 4GL with that list too, which is a language that I still use. -- Derek Melbourne, Australia 1/06/2005 9:30:10 AM
May 31 2005
prev sibling parent reply "TechnoZeus" <TechnoZeus PeoplePC.com> writes:
"TechnoZeus" <TechnoZeus PeoplePC.com> wrote in message
news:d7g05c$2vsa$1 digitaldaemon.com...
 Okay, in a previous discussion I noticed that a lot of people feel that having
basic GUI functionality
 built into a language is simply too much to ask for.  Perhaps it is, and
perhaps it's not.  In the case of
 the D language, I guess Walter would be the one to decide, but I'm rather sure
that he won't even
 consider it unless he sees a significant amount of intertest, so if you are
interested... here's your chance to show it.

 If it were POSSIBLE, would anyone here besides me "like to see" basic GUI
functionality
 built into the D language so Graphical User Interface type or Form type
objects would be
 as easy to put into a program as functions are now?

 PLEASE give at least a short affirmation if you would like to see this happen,
even if you think it can't be done!
 (More detailed descriptions of how or why you would like to see it happen are
strongly encouraged.)

 TZ

Okay, after reading through the replies... I give up. I thought this was a progressive group here, willing to work together toward a better future. Instead, what I see is a bunch of people who think that support for something comes in only one form.. and always has, and always will. I am seeing people say that in order for a language to have support for GUI based application programming, it has to have it's own GUI built in. I'm seeing people say that things have always been the way they are, and therefore that change of any type is a bad thing. Sorry, but I can't watch this anymore. It's too painful. I will be off looking for another language to stand behind. Please wish me luck in finding one that is as worthy as I feel D is. To anyone who feels as I do, I wish you luck also in finding something worthy of your time. To those who feel that stagnation is better than progress... I wish you peace. TZ TZ
May 31 2005
next sibling parent Trevor Parscal <Trevor_member pathlink.com> writes:
TechnoZeus, PLEASE!

I will beg so others don't have to.


DONT LEAVE!

I think people, like myself, are coming around. I started seeing things your way
before I read your post.

You have to be able to question yourself, and while usually you will just decide
you were right, sometimes, you have to be prepared to accept you were wrong.

I think my other post puts is well.

Thanks for not leaving,
Trevor Parscal
www.trevorparscal.com
trevorparscal hotmail.com
May 31 2005
prev sibling next sibling parent Derek Parnell <derek psych.ward> writes:
On Tue, 31 May 2005 03:29:29 -0500, TechnoZeus wrote:

 "TechnoZeus" <TechnoZeus PeoplePC.com> wrote in message
news:d7g05c$2vsa$1 digitaldaemon.com...

[snip]
 Okay, after reading through the replies... I give up.

I can understand your feelings because I have often felt just as frustrated when I'm the only one that understands what a great idea I've got. All I can say is please don't feel that opposition to your ideas is personal.
 I thought this was a progressive group here, willing to work together toward a
better future.

We are, and by allowing opposing opinions to be expressed, it gives you the opportunity to re-examine your foundations and either improve and confirm your ideas or learn that maybe you didn't have the best idea that time. There is a hell of a lot of experience here, so don't reject it too quickly.
 Instead, what I see is a bunch of people who think that support for something
comes in only one form..
 and always has, and always will.

You have no evidence of that. Please consider the possibility that you may be wrong about your GUI idea. Just because it seems a good idea to you, doesn't automatically make it a good idea.
  I am seeing people say that in order for a language to have support for GUI
based
 application programming, it has to have it's own GUI built in.

That is your position, right? I don't see many, if any, others saying this.
  I'm seeing people say that things have always been
 the way they are, and therefore that change of any type is a bad thing.

In fact, I'm saying that in the past, many of the prominent languages had UI features built into them, *and* its because of that experience that modern languages have rejected that concept, and instead implemented UI features in libraries. In other words, lessons from the past have been learned.
 Sorry, but I can't watch this anymore.  It's too painful.
 
 I will be off looking for another language to stand behind.

Please be a little more tolerant of us nay-sayers. You might teach us and you might be taught.
 Please wish me luck in finding one that is as worthy as I feel D is.
 To anyone who feels as I do, I wish you luck also in finding something worthy
of your time.
 To those who feel that stagnation is better than progress... I wish you peace.

[ And don't forget your bat and ball ;-) ] Hurry back. -- Derek Parnell Melbourne, Australia 31/05/2005 10:21:09 PM
May 31 2005
prev sibling next sibling parent Hasan Aljudy <hasan.aljudy gmail.com> writes:
TechnoZeus wrote:
 "TechnoZeus" <TechnoZeus PeoplePC.com> wrote in message
news:d7g05c$2vsa$1 digitaldaemon.com...
 
Okay, in a previous discussion I noticed that a lot of people feel that having
basic GUI functionality
built into a language is simply too much to ask for.  Perhaps it is, and
perhaps it's not.  In the case of
the D language, I guess Walter would be the one to decide, but I'm rather sure
that he won't even
consider it unless he sees a significant amount of intertest, so if you are
interested... here's your chance to show it.

If it were POSSIBLE, would anyone here besides me "like to see" basic GUI
functionality
built into the D language so Graphical User Interface type or Form type objects
would be
as easy to put into a program as functions are now?

PLEASE give at least a short affirmation if you would like to see this happen,
even if you think it can't be done!
(More detailed descriptions of how or why you would like to see it happen are
strongly encouraged.)

TZ

Okay, after reading through the replies... I give up. I thought this was a progressive group here, willing to work together toward a better future. Instead, what I see is a bunch of people who think that support for something comes in only one form.. and always has, and always will. I am seeing people say that in order for a language to have support for GUI based application programming, it has to have it's own GUI built in.

um, execuse me here .. but isn't this /your/ position?
 I'm seeing people say that things have always been
 the way they are, and therefore that change of any type is a bad thing.

 Sorry, but I can't watch this anymore.  It's too painful.

ok, you know what I'm seeing now? I'm seeing someone leave D because he can't openly accept that his ideas can be wrong. or just because his idea didn't see to get through. Now, if this were a political forum, and you expressed a certain view on a controversal(sp?) issue and everyone went attacking you .. I'd understand why you wouldn't want to stay in this unfriendly environment (and I've done it before). But man ... not here.
 
 I will be off looking for another language to stand behind.
 Please wish me luck in finding one that is as worthy as I feel D is.
 To anyone who feels as I do, I wish you luck also in finding something worthy
of your time.
 To those who feel that stagnation is better than progress... I wish you peace.
 
 TZ

What ever man, good luck.
May 31 2005
prev sibling next sibling parent James Dunne <james.jdunne gmail.com> writes:
In article <d7h7g6$167k$1 digitaldaemon.com>, TechnoZeus says...
"TechnoZeus" <TechnoZeus PeoplePC.com> wrote in message
news:d7g05c$2vsa$1 digitaldaemon.com...
 Okay, in a previous discussion I noticed that a lot of people feel that having
basic GUI functionality
 built into a language is simply too much to ask for.  Perhaps it is, and
perhaps it's not.  In the case of
 the D language, I guess Walter would be the one to decide, but I'm rather sure
that he won't even
 consider it unless he sees a significant amount of intertest, so if you are
interested... here's your chance to show it.

 If it were POSSIBLE, would anyone here besides me "like to see" basic GUI
functionality
 built into the D language so Graphical User Interface type or Form type
objects would be
 as easy to put into a program as functions are now?

 PLEASE give at least a short affirmation if you would like to see this happen,
even if you think it can't be done!
 (More detailed descriptions of how or why you would like to see it happen are
strongly encouraged.)

 TZ

Okay, after reading through the replies... I give up. I thought this was a progressive group here, willing to work together toward a better future. Instead, what I see is a bunch of people who think that support for something comes in only one form.. and always has, and always will. I am seeing people say that in order for a language to have support for GUI based application programming, it has to have it's own GUI built in. I'm seeing people say that things have always been the way they are, and therefore that change of any type is a bad thing. Sorry, but I can't watch this anymore. It's too painful. I will be off looking for another language to stand behind. Please wish me luck in finding one that is as worthy as I feel D is.

There sure isn't much out there in that regard if you're looking for a worthy competitor to D.
To anyone who feels as I do, I wish you luck also in finding something worthy
of your time.
To those who feel that stagnation is better than progress... I wish you peace.

TZ

Anyone else reminded of Eric Cartman? "Screw you guys ... I'm going home" =P No offense intended, but you are being a bit unreasonable here. I agree with Derek Parnell's position on the matter. But then again, you never cleared up the matter (or I missed that post). The idea of adding keywords and built-in/hidden functionality to the language is a bad idea. Perhaps this was not your original idea (I believe you stated so), and words were seemingly put into your mouth. However, you must admit that it is hard to fit in any other concept of extending the language to allow for GUI support to your idea without resorting to adding keywords or built-in/hidden functionality. Give us a little more to work with, perhaps? Don't just jump to conclusions and take off with the wrong assumptions in your head about the members of this forum or our concerns/ideals. Regards, James Dunne
May 31 2005
prev sibling parent reply "Rolf Tollerud" <rolftollerud msn.com> writes:
 I will be off looking for another language to stand behind.
 Please wish me luck in finding one that is as worthy as I feel D is.
 To anyone who feels as I do, I wish you luck also in finding something 
 worthy of your time.
 To those who feel that stagnation is better than progress... I wish you 
 peace.

TechnoZeus be reasonable! Which one of the dozen or so different GUI interface libraries should be included in the D language? http://www.wikiservice.at/wiki4d/wiki.cgi?AvailableGuiLibraries If any one of them should be "chosen" the others GUI authors would loose drive and enthusiasm, development would halt while now we have a healthy competition that benefits all. My choice would be DFL that is on the verge of becoming 1.0. Harmonia is a very interesting project with a revolutionary concept. Enjoy!
Jun 02 2005
parent =?ISO-8859-1?Q?Anders_F_Bj=F6rklund?= <afb algonet.se> writes:
Rolf Tollerud wrote:

 TechnoZeus  be reasonable!
 
 Which one of the dozen or so different GUI interface libraries should be 
 included in the D language?

He didn't want a library, he wanted the language changed... But didn't elaborate too much on the concept before he left. --anders
Jun 02 2005