www.digitalmars.com         C & C++   DMDScript  

digitalmars.D.announce - Adam Wilson is now a GSoC 2012 mentor!

reply Andrei Alexandrescu <SeeWebsiteForEmail erdani.org> writes:
We're very happy and honored to had Adam Wilson on board as a GSoC 2012 
mentor. Adam brings solid project management experience and has a 
specific interest in the Mono-D project.

Please join me in welcoming Adam to the ranks of GSoC mentors!


Thanks,

Andrei
Mar 26 2012
next sibling parent reply "BLS" <bizprac orange.fr> writes:
On Monday, 26 March 2012 at 15:27:29 UTC, Andrei Alexandrescu
wrote:
 We're very happy and honored to had Adam Wilson on board as a 
 GSoC 2012 mentor. Adam brings solid project management 
 experience and has a specific interest in the Mono-D project.

 Please join me in welcoming Adam to the ranks of GSoC mentors!


 Thanks,

 Andrei

On 03/26/2012 08:27 AM, Andrei Alexandrescu wrote:
 We're very happy and honored to had Adam Wilson on board as a 
 GSoC 2012 mentor. Adam brings solid project management 
 experience and has a specific interest in the Mono-D project.
 
 Please join me in welcoming Adam to the ranks of GSoC mentors!
 
 
 Thanks,
 
 Andrei

Welcome Adam and congratulation Alex. I am using Mono-D and I almost enjoy it. One thing is for sure: Code LookUp / "Intellisense" is great in Mono-D, ,Code outline simply rox, and MNono-D is (in this regard) light years ahead of Visual D. The pure speed in which Alex's code analyzer is working is just xtreme amazing. Alex ? Benchmarks ? But it is a GTK# and MONO based project and this means it is finally a C# project. I am pretty sure that we will have a complete wxWidgets 2.9.3 binding in a few days/weeks. (and we will have a TOOL to create almost automatic wxWidgets 2.4. 2.5, 3.0 bindings) incl. say Gtk 3.0 and iOS support) So. wouldn't make more sense to ask Alex to port and enhance his code analyzer into D2 as GSOC project to become part of a wxD2 driven IDE ? I think, Yep. Despite that, Alex, thanks for Mono-D, very well done. My 2 cents, Bjoern
Mar 26 2012
next sibling parent reply bls <bizprac orange.fr> writes:
On 03/26/2012 01:11 PM, Kapps wrote:
 And one of the very nice things about Mono-D is that the parser is
 completely standalone. It would not be difficult to integrate into
 Visual Studio in the future

Well, I am almost on Windows.(Not valid for all of us) (AFAIK) almost everyting to integrate D into Visual Studio is done in D. (incl. IDL stuff) correct if I am wrong. So yes... Alex's code Analyser should fit. as NET assembly But as well as D shared linrary Writing a State of the Art D2 IDE will not necessarily require a million lines of code . I am convinced that developing in wxD2*** code will be very close to what you do in wxPython, maybe even smarter. But I am loosing the point. Even if Alex carries on in Mono-D during GSOC it is a good thing. And.. if we are not able to translate C# stuff into D2 than the D2 design fails..
Mar 26 2012
next sibling parent bls <bizprac orange.fr> writes:
Hi,
to make it absolutely sure !! I hope that Alex's project will make it.

(and as one who has worked on a concrete project with Alex, having 
several private phone conversations, I am sure that Alex will deliver 
pretty cool stuff. Most probably more than one might expect.)


On 03/26/2012 03:00 PM, Adam Wilson wrote:
 ono is over a million, Visual Studio is almost as much as the Windows
 Kernel (5m+ IIRC), and Eclipse ... well I don't what they are doing
 wrong over there but the bloat is epic.
 In other words, a good IDE is a massively complicated beast.
 Integrations are much quicker and we don't have to reinvent the wheel
 all over the place.

IMO this is questionable. What do you count as required LOC ? Say this is what could be done by Plug-Ins. SVN / GIT support, Database Explorer, ER Designer UML Designer XML/XSL support SOAP/REST support etc. So the core IDE has to support a flexible Doc/View Model a Plug-In Architecture, and Source code analysis. Maybe an internal project-management that supports a build/make tool. Debug Support. Period. All that visual stuff, say panel docking, gui persistence has not to be written from the scratch.. It is part of the GUI lib. Exotic stuff, You want the best ever Ultimate Development Environment. Say you want Realtime developer collaboration/Video conferencing ... a piece of cake in Python (using async IO/ XMPP ....) No rocket science at all.
 I am convinced that developing in wxD2*** code  will be very close to
 what you do in wxPython, maybe even smarter.

 But I am loosing the point. Even if Alex carries on in Mono-D during
 GSOC it is a good thing. And.. if we are not able to translate C#
 stuff into D2 than the D2 design fails..

Actually, I'm porting the ANTLR Runtime from C# to D right now. The languages are VERY similar, where the whole thing falls apart is the standard library, or the fact that Phobos is brutally underpowered compared to the .NET BCL. I wrote a List(T) class just to make the pain stop.

Well, here I definitely should shut up.. std.collections... Anyway from time to time I think it would make sense to port the MOMO/NET collection stuff into D. Simply to make porting of dot net code possible without too much pain. but that's an other story. Thanks for being a Mentor for this Project.
Mar 26 2012
prev sibling parent reply Jacob Carlborg <doob me.com> writes:
On 2012-03-27 00:00, Adam Wilson wrote:

 Mono is over a million, Visual Studio is almost as much as the Windows
 Kernel (5m+ IIRC), and Eclipse ... well I don't what they are doing
 wrong over there but the bloat is epic.
 In other words, a good IDE is a massively complicated beast.
 Integrations are much quicker and we don't have to reinvent the wheel
 all over the place.

I agree that an writing an IDE will be a massive project. But it doesn't have to be as complicated as Eclipse or MonoDevelop. These support plugins to add support for new languages, Eclipse contains support for UML diagrams and similar things. Not something that is needed to make a fully usable D IDE. -- /Jacob Carlborg
Mar 27 2012
parent Jacob Carlborg <doob me.com> writes:
On 2012-03-27 20:05, Adam Wilson wrote:

 To be a fully useable *D* IDE this is true, but that's not really an
 Integrated Development Environment, its just Yet Another Specialized
 Development Environment. I'd argue that the whole point of the
 "Integrated" part of IDE is that everything you might possibly need to
 do your job is one place specifically so you don't have to go hunt down
 that other software package you only need every couple of months. And
 I'm not saying that we shouldn't have an IDE written in D, just that
 it's not the best path at the moment, and regardless of the purity folks
 "everything must be written in D!" tirades, integrating D into
 MonoDevelop represents the best way to get devs using D right now. Also,
 the D GUI situation leaves a lot to be desired in terms of complex UI's
 like IDE's.

 Besides, Mono-D has more pressing issues than a potential stand-alone
 IDE ... CTFE/mixin parsing anybody?

I agree with you. If you want to use the same IDE for EVERYTHING than that will take a lot more work. In that case I don't see much point in reinventing the wheel when we have MonoDevelop and Eclipse. But I think an IDE can be for one language and still be called IDE, although others might call it a glorified text editor. -- /Jacob Carlborg
Mar 27 2012
prev sibling parent reply Bruno Medeiros <brunodomedeiros+dng gmail.com> writes:
On 26/03/2012 20:43, Adam Wilson wrote:
 As to an IDE written in D, that's a HUGE project and well outside the
 scope of what can be accomplished in a GSoC project. It takes millions
 of lines of code to make a *DECENT* IDE.

I agree, this idea to write a proper, *fully-featured* IDE in D is simply totally unrealistic. If it's just a D editor with some IDE functionality, sure, someone can toy around and try to work on that, but as for a proper IDE, there is just so much functionality and infrastructure that platforms like Eclipse, Visual Studio, MonoDevelop, Netbeans, etc., provide that is dumb and futile to try replicate all of that in D. There are years of paid, multi-developer teams work behind that infrastructure, and you want one or two guys to replicate that in their free time? Right. We don't even have a mature, fleshed-out D GUI library, let alone IDE infrastructure... -- Bruno Medeiros - Software Engineer
May 18 2012
parent reply Jacob Carlborg <doob me.com> writes:
On 2012-05-18 19:20, Bruno Medeiros wrote:

 I agree, this idea to write a proper, *fully-featured* IDE in D is
 simply totally unrealistic. If it's just a D editor with some IDE
 functionality, sure, someone can toy around and try to work on that, but
 as for a proper IDE, there is just so much functionality and
 infrastructure that platforms like Eclipse, Visual Studio, MonoDevelop,
 Netbeans, etc., provide that is dumb and futile to try replicate all of
 that in D. There are years of paid, multi-developer teams work behind
 that infrastructure, and you want one or two guys to replicate that in
 their free time? Right.
 We don't even have a mature, fleshed-out D GUI library, let alone IDE
 infrastructure...

Half of Eclipse is ported to D :) https://github.com/d-widget-toolkit -- /Jacob Carlborg
May 18 2012
next sibling parent Jacob Carlborg <doob me.com> writes:
On 2012-05-19 06:03, Andrew Wiley wrote:

 Half of Eclipse ~4-6 years ago ported to D.
 That certainly doesn't make it not useful, but DWT hasn't managed to
 keep up with Eclipse.

I know, I know. Any help is welcome. -- /Jacob Carlborg
May 19 2012
prev sibling parent reply Paulo Pinto <pjmlp progtools.org> writes:
Am 18.05.2012 21:39, schrieb Jacob Carlborg:
 On 2012-05-18 19:20, Bruno Medeiros wrote:

 I agree, this idea to write a proper, *fully-featured* IDE in D is
 simply totally unrealistic. If it's just a D editor with some IDE
 functionality, sure, someone can toy around and try to work on that, but
 as for a proper IDE, there is just so much functionality and
 infrastructure that platforms like Eclipse, Visual Studio, MonoDevelop,
 Netbeans, etc., provide that is dumb and futile to try replicate all of
 that in D. There are years of paid, multi-developer teams work behind
 that infrastructure, and you want one or two guys to replicate that in
 their free time? Right.
 We don't even have a mature, fleshed-out D GUI library, let alone IDE
 infrastructure...

Half of Eclipse is ported to D :) https://github.com/d-widget-toolkit

As someone that has experience developing Eclipse plugins, I would say that is more like a 1/4 of Eclipse or even less. :) The UI framework is very little from the complete runtime infrastructure that Eclipse offers. -- Paulo
May 19 2012
parent Jacob Carlborg <doob me.com> writes:
On 2012-05-19 12:20, Paulo Pinto wrote:

 As someone that has experience developing Eclipse plugins, I would say
 that is more like a 1/4 of Eclipse or even less. :)

 The UI framework is very little from the complete runtime infrastructure
 that Eclipse offers.

That's why I added the smiley :) -- /Jacob Carlborg
May 20 2012
prev sibling next sibling parent "Adam Wilson" <flyboynw gmail.com> writes:
On Mon, 26 Mar 2012 11:15:54 -0700, BLS <bizprac orange.fr> wrote:

 On Monday, 26 March 2012 at 15:27:29 UTC, Andrei Alexandrescu
 wrote:
 We're very happy and honored to had Adam Wilson on board as a GSoC 2012  
 mentor. Adam brings solid project management experience and has a  
 specific interest in the Mono-D project.

 Please join me in welcoming Adam to the ranks of GSoC mentors!


 Thanks,

 Andrei

On 03/26/2012 08:27 AM, Andrei Alexandrescu wrote:
 We're very happy and honored to had Adam Wilson on board as a GSoC 2012  
 mentor. Adam brings solid project management experience and has a  
 specific interest in the Mono-D project.
  Please join me in welcoming Adam to the ranks of GSoC mentors!
   Thanks,
  Andrei

Welcome Adam and congratulation Alex. I am using Mono-D and I almost enjoy it. One thing is for sure: Code LookUp / "Intellisense" is great in Mono-D, ,Code outline simply rox, and MNono-D is (in this regard) light years ahead of Visual D. The pure speed in which Alex's code analyzer is working is just xtreme amazing. Alex ? Benchmarks ? But it is a GTK# and MONO based project and this means it is finally a C# project. I am pretty sure that we will have a complete wxWidgets 2.9.3 binding in a few days/weeks. (and we will have a TOOL to create almost automatic wxWidgets 2.4. 2.5, 3.0 bindings) incl. say Gtk 3.0 and iOS support) So. wouldn't make more sense to ask Alex to port and enhance his code analyzer into D2 as GSOC project to become part of a wxD2 driven IDE ? I think, Yep. Despite that, Alex, thanks for Mono-D, very well done. My 2 cents, Bjoern

I think that the best thing that we can do right now is to focus on bringing the parser to completion. It's still missing some key features of D, especially in terms of code-completion and syntax highlighting. It's also missing UFCS from 2.058, which is a pretty big deal I think. For a full list of tasks that Alex would like to get done please see this list: https://github.com/aBothe/Mono-D/blob/master/MonoDevelop.DBinding/Remaining%20features.txt As to an IDE written in D, that's a HUGE project and well outside the scope of what can be accomplished in a GSoC project. It takes millions of lines of code to make a *DECENT* IDE. Not to mention that UI design is something that will always polarize the community, some basically want a glorified VIM/EMACS while other will settle for nothing less than a Visual Studio clone, still more people will want a radically different UI from anything previously seen (I personally am intrigued by Code-Bubbles for instance). Plus why bother with that when we can integrate into existing solutions like MonoDevelop or Visual Studio *much* quicker. I personally think that Mono-D represents the most capable path forward for D IDE's right now, maybe later that might change as D grows, but for the moment we need an complete IDE fast, and integration can deliver that. -- Adam Wilson IRC: LightBender Project Coordinator The Horizon Project http://www.thehorizonproject.org/
Mar 26 2012
prev sibling next sibling parent "Kapps" <opantm2+spam gmail.com> writes:
On Monday, 26 March 2012 at 19:43:56 UTC, Adam Wilson wrote:
 I think that the best thing that we can do right now is to 
 focus on bringing the parser to completion. It's still missing 
 some key features of D, especially in terms of code-completion 
 and syntax highlighting. It's also missing UFCS from 2.058, 
 which is a pretty big deal I think. For a full list of tasks 
 that Alex would like to get done please see this list: 
 https://github.com/aBothe/Mono-D/blob/master/MonoDevelop.DBinding/Remaining%20features.txt

 As to an IDE written in D, that's a HUGE project and well 
 outside the scope of what can be accomplished in a GSoC 
 project. It takes millions of lines of code to make a *DECENT* 
 IDE. Not to mention that UI design is something that will 
 always polarize the community, some basically want a glorified 
 VIM/EMACS while other will settle for nothing less than a 
 Visual Studio clone, still more people will want a radically 
 different UI from anything previously seen (I personally am 
 intrigued by Code-Bubbles for instance). Plus why bother with 
 that when we can integrate into existing solutions like 
 MonoDevelop or Visual Studio *much* quicker.

 I personally think that Mono-D represents the most capable path 
 forward for D IDE's right now, maybe later that might change as 
 D grows, but for the moment we need an complete IDE fast, and 
 integration can deliver that.

And one of the very nice things about Mono-D is that the parser is completely standalone. It would not be difficult to integrate into Visual Studio in the future. Both are done in C#, and both are somewhat similar to code for. Instead of making a D specific IDE, we can just use a very nice plugin for both Visual Studio and Mono-D, with being able to use the same code-base for the logic.
Mar 26 2012
prev sibling next sibling parent "Adam Wilson" <flyboynw gmail.com> writes:
On Mon, 26 Mar 2012 14:52:19 -0700, bls <bizprac orange.fr> wrote:

 On 03/26/2012 01:11 PM, Kapps wrote:
 And one of the very nice things about Mono-D is that the parser is
 completely standalone. It would not be difficult to integrate into
 Visual Studio in the future

Well, I am almost on Windows.(Not valid for all of us) (AFAIK) almost everyting to integrate D into Visual Studio is done in D. (incl. IDL stuff) correct if I am wrong. So yes... Alex's code Analyser should fit. as NET assembly But as well as D shared linrary

Yes, and IMHO that is really holding it back because not everything that VS has to offer is available via COM. For example anything that wants to touch VS's WPF interface directly needs to go through .NET. In the case of integrations, building the integration in anything other than the language used to build the IDE itself is intentionally tying one hand behind your back in the name of 'purity'. I support Alex's choice to use C# to build the Mono-D binding, its the most sensible decision that can be made.
 Writing a State of the Art D2 IDE will not necessarily require  a  
 million lines of code .

Mono is over a million, Visual Studio is almost as much as the Windows Kernel (5m+ IIRC), and Eclipse ... well I don't what they are doing wrong over there but the bloat is epic. In other words, a good IDE is a massively complicated beast. Integrations are much quicker and we don't have to reinvent the wheel all over the place.
 I am convinced that developing in wxD2*** code  will be very close to  
 what you do in wxPython, maybe even smarter.

 But I am loosing the point. Even if Alex carries on in Mono-D during  
 GSOC it is a good thing. And.. if we are not able to translate C# stuff  
 into D2 than the D2 design fails..

Actually, I'm porting the ANTLR Runtime from C# to D right now. The languages are VERY similar, where the whole thing falls apart is the standard library, or the fact that Phobos is brutally underpowered compared to the .NET BCL. I wrote a List(T) class just to make the pain stop. -- Adam Wilson IRC: LightBender Project Coordinator The Horizon Project http://www.thehorizonproject.org/
Mar 26 2012
prev sibling next sibling parent "alex" <info alexanderbothe.com> writes:
Hi there,

Yeah I'm very grateful that Adam wants to be a mentor for GSoC 
this year -
Nevertheless I'm still not sure which feature(s) I want to focus 
- since there are so many features that sound interesting but are 
obviously complex and time-intensive (like showing all possible 
methods e.g. after a string literal, so it'd be then that you're 
typing "asdf". and all available/matching methods will pop up)

-- things like CTFE and pre-compile time mixin resolution also 
are interesting and surely features which hard to fit in a 
relatively strict time table.

So my actual problem/goal is to fill those 3 months efficently. - 
My application to GSoC and other formal things are going to 
follow 'later on' - so I guess in a couple of days.


Oh btw, there's a new Mono-D version :D
Mar 26 2012
prev sibling next sibling parent "Adam Wilson" <flyboynw gmail.com> writes:
On Tue, 27 Mar 2012 09:38:33 -0700, Jacob Carlborg <doob me.com> wrote:

 On 2012-03-27 00:00, Adam Wilson wrote:

 Mono is over a million, Visual Studio is almost as much as the Windows
 Kernel (5m+ IIRC), and Eclipse ... well I don't what they are doing
 wrong over there but the bloat is epic.
 In other words, a good IDE is a massively complicated beast.
 Integrations are much quicker and we don't have to reinvent the wheel
 all over the place.

I agree that an writing an IDE will be a massive project. But it doesn't have to be as complicated as Eclipse or MonoDevelop. These support plugins to add support for new languages, Eclipse contains support for UML diagrams and similar things. Not something that is needed to make a fully usable D IDE.

To be a fully useable *D* IDE this is true, but that's not really an Integrated Development Environment, its just Yet Another Specialized Development Environment. I'd argue that the whole point of the "Integrated" part of IDE is that everything you might possibly need to do your job is one place specifically so you don't have to go hunt down that other software package you only need every couple of months. And I'm not saying that we shouldn't have an IDE written in D, just that it's not the best path at the moment, and regardless of the purity folks "everything must be written in D!" tirades, integrating D into MonoDevelop represents the best way to get devs using D right now. Also, the D GUI situation leaves a lot to be desired in terms of complex UI's like IDE's. Besides, Mono-D has more pressing issues than a potential stand-alone IDE ... CTFE/mixin parsing anybody? -- Adam Wilson IRC: LightBender Project Coordinator The Horizon Project http://www.thehorizonproject.org/
Mar 27 2012
prev sibling next sibling parent "alex" <info alexanderbothe.com> writes:
On Tuesday, 27 March 2012 at 18:06:03 UTC, Adam Wilson wrote:
 Besides, Mono-D has more pressing issues than a potential 
 stand-alone IDE ... CTFE/mixin parsing anybody?

Well, I think the GSoC phase will be about implementing UFCS, Mixin/Expression evaluation and CTFE then. Well cool, so I found the key features that I'll do for Mono-D. I'll prepare an application document then - so I probably will hand it in to the digitalmars heads tomorrow or on thursday, dunno exactly :)
Mar 27 2012
prev sibling parent Andrew Wiley <wiley.andrew.j gmail.com> writes:
--bcaec5524206c5c87404c05bc2f9
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1

On Fri, May 18, 2012 at 2:39 PM, Jacob Carlborg <doob me.com> wrote:

 On 2012-05-18 19:20, Bruno Medeiros wrote:

  I agree, this idea to write a proper, *fully-featured* IDE in D is
 simply totally unrealistic. If it's just a D editor with some IDE
 functionality, sure, someone can toy around and try to work on that, but
 as for a proper IDE, there is just so much functionality and
 infrastructure that platforms like Eclipse, Visual Studio, MonoDevelop,
 Netbeans, etc., provide that is dumb and futile to try replicate all of
 that in D. There are years of paid, multi-developer teams work behind
 that infrastructure, and you want one or two guys to replicate that in
 their free time? Right.
 We don't even have a mature, fleshed-out D GUI library, let alone IDE
 infrastructure...

https://github.com/d-widget-**toolkit<https://github.com/d-widget-toolkit>

Half of Eclipse ~4-6 years ago ported to D. That certainly doesn't make it not useful, but DWT hasn't managed to keep up with Eclipse. --bcaec5524206c5c87404c05bc2f9 Content-Type: text/html; charset=ISO-8859-1 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable <div class=3D"gmail_quote">On Fri, May 18, 2012 at 2:39 PM, Jacob Carlborg = <span dir=3D"ltr">&lt;<a href=3D"mailto:doob me.com" target=3D"_blank">doob= me.com</a>&gt;</span> wrote:<br><blockquote class=3D"gmail_quote" style=3D= "margin:0 0 0 .8ex;border-left:1px #ccc solid;padding-left:1ex"> <div class=3D"im">On 2012-05-18 19:20, Bruno Medeiros wrote:<br> <br> <blockquote class=3D"gmail_quote" style=3D"margin:0 0 0 .8ex;border-left:1p= x #ccc solid;padding-left:1ex"> I agree, this idea to write a proper, *fully-featured* IDE in D is<br> simply totally unrealistic. If it&#39;s just a D editor with some IDE<br> functionality, sure, someone can toy around and try to work on that, but<br=

infrastructure that platforms like Eclipse, Visual Studio, MonoDevelop,<br> Netbeans, etc., provide that is dumb and futile to try replicate all of<br> that in D. There are years of paid, multi-developer teams work behind<br> that infrastructure, and you want one or two guys to replicate that in<br> their free time? Right.<br> We don&#39;t even have a mature, fleshed-out D GUI library, let alone IDE<b= r> infrastructure...<br> <br> </blockquote> <br></div> Half of Eclipse is ported to D :)<br> <br> <a href=3D"https://github.com/d-widget-toolkit" target=3D"_blank">https://g= ithub.com/d-widget-<u></u>toolkit</a></blockquote><div><br></div><div>Half = of Eclipse ~4-6 years ago ported to D.</div><div>That certainly doesn&#39;t= make it not useful, but DWT hasn&#39;t managed to keep up with Eclipse.=A0= </div> </div> --bcaec5524206c5c87404c05bc2f9--
May 18 2012