www.digitalmars.com         C & C++   DMDScript  

digitalmars.D - dmd support for IDEs

reply Walter Bright <newshound1 digitalmars.com> writes:
In my discussions with companies about adopting D, the major barrier 
that comes up over and over isn't Tango vs Phobos, dmd being GPL, 
debugger support, libraries, bugs, etc., although those are important.

It's the IDE.

They say that the productivity gains of D's improvements are 
overbalanced by the loss of productivity by moving away from an IDE. And 
what is it about an IDE that is so productive? Intellisense (Microsoft's 
word for autocompletion).

So, while I'm not going to be writing an IDE, I figure that dmd can 
help. dmd already puts out .doc and .di files. How about putting out an 
xml file giving all the information needed for an IDE to implement 
autocompletion? There'd be one .xml file generated per .d source file.

The nice thing about an xml file is while D is relatively easy to parse, 
xml is trivial. Furthermore, an xml format would be fairly robust in the 
face of changes to D syntax.

What do you think?
Oct 10 2009
next sibling parent reply digited <digited yandex.ru> writes:
Walter Bright :
 The nice thing about an xml file is while D is relatively easy to parse,
 xml is trivial.

Why file? An IDE can call compiler process and get output with info from stdout, that will be much faster, and if IDE will need to store the info, it will, or will not, itself.
Oct 10 2009
parent reply Lutger <lutger.blijdestijn gmail.com> writes:
digited wrote:

 Walter Bright �����:
 The nice thing about an xml file is while D is relatively easy to parse,
 xml is trivial.

Why file? An IDE can call compiler process and get output with info from stdout, that will be much faster, and if IDE will need to store the info, it will, or will not, itself.

Yes please make it write to stdout! This is a very good plan and useful not only for IDE's, but also for example to automate bindings to scriptings languages.
Oct 11 2009
parent Andrei Alexandrescu <SeeWebsiteForEmail erdani.org> writes:
Lutger wrote:
 digited wrote:
 
 Walter Bright �����:
 The nice thing about an xml file is while D is relatively easy to parse,
 xml is trivial.

stdout, that will be much faster, and if IDE will need to store the info, it will, or will not, itself.

Yes please make it write to stdout!

That's a good idea, but traditionally Unix a program that outputs many files (such as a compiler) outputs them to named files, with "-" representing stdin/stdout. Andrei
Oct 11 2009
prev sibling next sibling parent reply Jeremie Pelletier <jeremiep gmail.com> writes:
Walter Bright wrote:
 In my discussions with companies about adopting D, the major barrier 
 that comes up over and over isn't Tango vs Phobos, dmd being GPL, 
 debugger support, libraries, bugs, etc., although those are important.
 
 It's the IDE.
 
 They say that the productivity gains of D's improvements are 
 overbalanced by the loss of productivity by moving away from an IDE. And 
 what is it about an IDE that is so productive? Intellisense (Microsoft's 
 word for autocompletion).
 
 So, while I'm not going to be writing an IDE, I figure that dmd can 
 help. dmd already puts out .doc and .di files. How about putting out an 
 xml file giving all the information needed for an IDE to implement 
 autocompletion? There'd be one .xml file generated per .d source file.
 
 The nice thing about an xml file is while D is relatively easy to parse, 
 xml is trivial. Furthermore, an xml format would be fairly robust in the 
 face of changes to D syntax.
 
 What do you think?

I think it would be great, but XML is only one format and a heavy one at that, JSON for example is much lighter and easier to parse. It shouldn't be hard to support both. However I would make the file generation optional, as the IDE might just want to read from the standard output stream of dmd instead, this would also be useful for shell scripts. Support to get the semantics information of multiple files at once would also be neat, just like dmd can generate one object file from multiple source files. Would it even be possible to have the C api behind the xml/json frontends exported in a dll, so IDEs could just dynamically link to it and call that API directly instead of parsing an intermediary text format. Jeremie
Oct 10 2009
parent reply Walter Bright <newshound1 digitalmars.com> writes:
Jeremie Pelletier wrote:
 I think it would be great, but XML is only one format and a heavy one at 
 that, JSON for example is much lighter and easier to parse. It shouldn't 
 be hard to support both.

I'd never heard of JSON, but looking at it, it makes sense. I don't see much point in supporting both.
 However I would make the file generation optional, as the IDE might just 
 want to read from the standard output stream of dmd instead, this would 
 also be useful for shell scripts.

Yes, writing it to stdout as an option is a good idea.
 Support to get the semantics information of multiple files at once would 
 also be neat, just like dmd can generate one object file from multiple 
 source files.

Yes.
 Would it even be possible to have the C api behind the xml/json 
 frontends exported in a dll, so IDEs could just dynamically link to it 
 and call that API directly instead of parsing an intermediary text format.

I did that with the C++ compiler, and it's a big pain to support. I don't think it would be onerous to fork/exec the compiler to do the work, capture the output, and parse it.
Oct 10 2009
next sibling parent bearophile <bearophileHUGS lycos.com> writes:
Walter Bright:

In my discussions with companies about adopting D, the major barrier that comes
up over and over isn't Tango vs Phobos, dmd being GPL, debugger support,
libraries, bugs, etc., although those are important. It's the IDE. They say
that the productivity gains of D's improvements are overbalanced by the loss of
productivity by moving away from an IDE.<

Welcome to more modern times Walter :-) You may have noticed that a small army of people in this newsgroup has told you the same things in the last years I've spent around here. In practice modern statically typed languages aren't designed to be used alone, they are designed to be used with an IDE. So what in the past was a "programming language" today is a "programming language + IDE". Probably there are ways to overdo this idea (like the idea of programming languages written in XML instead of nornal text), but D isn't risking to fall into this trap yet.
And what is it about an IDE that is so productive? Intellisense (Microsoft's
word for autocompletion).<

The productivity of modern IDEs is a complex thing, it comes from several tuned features. Intellisense is just one of those parts. Have you tried to program 2-3 days with dotnet C#? If you try, you will see several interesting things you don't know about. Some form of reflection too helps IDEs, I think. The file you talk about will help refracting tools, I guess. In C# you have a syntax for sections of code that tells the IDE how to fold code, it's named: #region Some people don't like them, but they are common in C#: http://www.codinghorror.com/blog/archives/001147.html Attributes too are food for the IDEs, they add semantic information on the code, and IDEs love such information: someattribute(data1, datas2, ...)
 I'd never heard of JSON, but looking at it, it makes sense. I don't see 
 much point in supporting both.

XML is very common, so most tools already support it or have ways to support it. So probably big IDEs are able to read XML files. So supporting XML is good. JSON is light, easy to parse, so if you want to write a simpler tool it can be good. I like JSON, it's quite common on the web and with dynamic languages. But JSON is less common in some situations, so some existing tools may not be already able to digest it. That's why supporting both looks like a good idea. The good thing is that I don't think will be hard to generate one when DMD is able to generate the other. If you really want to support only one of the two, then you have to look at the kind of generated data. XML is better for really complex structures, while JSON is enough if the data ha a low level of nesting. The tools designed to query very complex XML files are more advanced and common. What kind of data do you want to put in such files? The optional output to stdout of such data is good. Bye, bearophile
Oct 10 2009
prev sibling parent reply Jeremie Pelletier <jeremiep gmail.com> writes:
Walter Bright wrote:
 Jeremie Pelletier wrote:
 I think it would be great, but XML is only one format and a heavy one 
 at that, JSON for example is much lighter and easier to parse. It 
 shouldn't be hard to support both.

I'd never heard of JSON, but looking at it, it makes sense. I don't see much point in supporting both.

XML makes sense when saving as a file and it can be transformed by XSLT to generate formatted html documentation and whatnot, while JSON is lightweight and better suited for pipes between dmd and the IDE.
 However I would make the file generation optional, as the IDE might 
 just want to read from the standard output stream of dmd instead, this 
 would also be useful for shell scripts.

Yes, writing it to stdout as an option is a good idea.
 Support to get the semantics information of multiple files at once 
 would also be neat, just like dmd can generate one object file from 
 multiple source files.

Yes.
 Would it even be possible to have the C api behind the xml/json 
 frontends exported in a dll, so IDEs could just dynamically link to it 
 and call that API directly instead of parsing an intermediary text 
 format.

I did that with the C++ compiler, and it's a big pain to support. I don't think it would be onerous to fork/exec the compiler to do the work, capture the output, and parse it.

The IDE usually keeps the files in memory and could therefore just call something like getSemantics(char** fileBuffers, int* fileSizes, int nFiles, ParseNode* parseTree) and have its parse nodes already allocated in process memory ready for use. Considering a lot of IDEs like to re-parse the current file every time the keyboard is idle for a few seconds, this could really help performance, nothing is more annoying than an IDE that feels unresponsive.
Oct 10 2009
parent reply Walter Bright <newshound1 digitalmars.com> writes:
Jeremie Pelletier wrote:
 The IDE usually keeps the files in memory and could therefore just call 
 something like getSemantics(char** fileBuffers, int* fileSizes, int 
 nFiles, ParseNode* parseTree) and have its parse nodes already allocated 
 in process memory ready for use.
 
 Considering a lot of IDEs like to re-parse the current file every time 
 the keyboard is idle for a few seconds, this could really help 
 performance, nothing is more annoying than an IDE that feels unresponsive.

I understand and agree, but we are operating under severe manpower constraints. I don't have a 100 million dollar budget! (I'm sure MS spends more than that on VS.) You're certainly welcome to take the compiler front end and try and make a dll out of it or integrate it directly into an IDE. But what I suggested would probably get a lot of results for a minimal investment in the front end and a minimal investment in existing IDEs. My experience with making responsive interactive apps on slow machines suggests that using a multithreaded approach would make the IDE responsive even if the underlying parsing process is slow. What you do is, every time the source file changes, fire off a background thread at a low priority to reparse. If the source changes before it finishes, restart that thread. When the IDE actually needs the results, it uses the results of the most recently finished parse. With this approach, there won't be any hangs where the keyboard is unresponsive. Experience also suggests that using fork/exec rather than a shared dll approach is much more robust and easier to develop. The reason is that the former uses separate processes, which cannot step on each other. The latter puts everything in one process space, where you've got all the lovely, time-consuming, hair-pulling concurrency problems. The utter failure of the parse process also cannot bring down the IDE.
Oct 10 2009
next sibling parent Walter Bright <newshound1 digitalmars.com> writes:
Walter Bright wrote:
 Experience also suggests that using fork/exec rather than a shared dll 
 approach is much more robust and easier to develop. The reason is that 
 the former uses separate processes, which cannot step on each other. The 
 latter puts everything in one process space, where you've got all the 
 lovely, time-consuming, hair-pulling concurrency problems. The utter 
 failure of the parse process also cannot bring down the IDE.

In particular, if the compiler seg faults (does it ever do that? <g>) it won't stop the IDE.
Oct 10 2009
prev sibling next sibling parent bearophile <bearophileHUGS lycos.com> writes:
Walter Bright:

 but we are operating under severe manpower 
 constraints. I don't have a 100 million dollar budget!

And sometimes this is even an advantage, because it forces to keep things simple and not over-engineered :-) Bye, bearophile
Oct 10 2009
prev sibling next sibling parent =?ISO-8859-1?Q?=22J=E9r=F4me_M=2E_Berger=22?= <jeberger free.fr> writes:
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1; format=flowed
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable

Walter Bright wrote:
 Jeremie Pelletier wrote:
 The IDE usually keeps the files in memory and could therefore just=20
 call something like getSemantics(char** fileBuffers, int* fileSizes,=20
 int nFiles, ParseNode* parseTree) and have its parse nodes already=20
 allocated in process memory ready for use.

 Considering a lot of IDEs like to re-parse the current file every time=


 the keyboard is idle for a few seconds, this could really help=20
 performance, nothing is more annoying than an IDE that feels=20
 unresponsive.

... Experience also suggests that using fork/exec rather than a shared dll =

 approach is much more robust and easier to develop. The reason is that =

 the former uses separate processes, which cannot step on each other. Th=

 latter puts everything in one process space, where you've got all the=20
 lovely, time-consuming, hair-pulling concurrency problems. The utter=20
 failure of the parse process also cannot bring down the IDE.

Plus, with a DLL you're contaminated by the GPL: the IDE *has* to=20 be GPL-compatible to use your DLL. With fork/exec there are no such=20 constraints... Jerome --=20 mailto:jeberger free.fr http://jeberger.free.fr Jabber: jeberger jabber.fr
Oct 11 2009
prev sibling parent reply Michel Fortin <michel.fortin michelf.com> writes:
On 2009-10-11 01:57:08 -0400, Walter Bright <newshound1 digitalmars.com> said:

 You're certainly welcome to take the compiler front end and try and 
 make a dll out of it or integrate it directly into an IDE. But what I 
 suggested would probably get a lot of results for a minimal investment 
 in the front end and a minimal investment in existing IDEs.

And I've already done so in D for Xcode (with an old version of DMD). I had to change the error handling to throw exceptions on errors (no call to exit in my IDE please!). I also added some data to tokens to get their exact range in the file allowing me to use the DMD lexer for syntax highlighting. The semantic also did preserve that information and could tell you in what class, template, or function your insertion point was on a per-character basis. And then I stopped there. This is a pain to maintain when DMD gets updated, so I didn't. It's buggy because if the compiler crashes, the IDE crashes too (keep in mind that parsing incomplete code every few seconds has a tendency to cause more crashes than regular compilation). And finally, Xcode 3 came with a much better syntax definition format and a complete revamp of syntax highlighting that obsoleted half the integration work I did. So the next version of D for Xcode will get rid of DMDFE as an internal component and use Xcode's built-in machinery. It's not clear to me how much getting supplementary data from the compiler could help. If I only get what I can see through Ddoc, it's only half useful. I can already parse and get character ranges for the the high-level constructs (classes, tempaltes, functions, etc.). What will be harder is matching each symbol in function code to the correct definition because that depends on the context of the function and doing autocompletion for what you type depending on what's available in a given context.
 Experience also suggests that using fork/exec rather than a shared dll 
 approach is much more robust and easier to develop. The reason is that 
 the former uses separate processes, which cannot step on each other. 
 The latter puts everything in one process space, where you've got all 
 the lovely, time-consuming, hair-pulling concurrency problems. The 
 utter failure of the parse process also cannot bring down the IDE.

Indeed, you don't want the compiler to crash your IDE. Also, can DMD accept D files from stdin? That way files wouldn't need to be saved on disk on each keystroke. -- Michel Fortin michel.fortin michelf.com http://michelf.com/
Oct 11 2009
parent reply Walter Bright <newshound1 digitalmars.com> writes:
Michel Fortin wrote:
 It's not clear to me how much getting supplementary data from the 
 compiler could help. If I only get what I can see through Ddoc, it's 
 only half useful. I can already parse and get character ranges for the 
 the high-level constructs (classes, tempaltes, functions, etc.). What 
 will be harder is matching each symbol in function code to the correct 
 definition because that depends on the context of the function and doing 
 autocompletion for what you type depending on what's available in a 
 given context.

I agree it's only half useful. But I think it's still a big win over zero useful.
 Also, can DMD accept D files from stdin? That way files wouldn't need to 
 be saved on disk on each keystroke.

No, but it's a good idea.
Oct 11 2009
parent reply Michel Fortin <michel.fortin michelf.com> writes:
On 2009-10-11 14:19:52 -0400, Walter Bright <newshound1 digitalmars.com> said:

 Michel Fortin wrote:
 It's not clear to me how much getting supplementary data from the 
 compiler could help. If I only get what I can see through Ddoc, it's 
 only half useful. I can already parse and get character ranges for the 
 the high-level constructs (classes, tempaltes, functions, etc.). What 
 will be harder is matching each symbol in function code to the correct 
 definition because that depends on the context of the function and 
 doing autocompletion for what you type depending on what's available in 
 a given context.

I agree it's only half useful. But I think it's still a big win over zero useful.

Indeed. And it may be a perfect fit for other tools such as a documentation system that can do cross-references across modules, or... hum perhaps even runtime reflection? :-)
 Also, can DMD accept D files from stdin? That way files wouldn't need 
 to be saved on disk on each keystroke.

No, but it's a good idea.

Great. -- Michel Fortin michel.fortin michelf.com http://michelf.com/
Oct 11 2009
parent Walter Bright <newshound1 digitalmars.com> writes:
Michel Fortin wrote:
 Indeed. And it may be a perfect fit for other tools such as a 
 documentation system that can do cross-references across modules, or... 
 hum perhaps even runtime reflection? :-)

It's one of those things where there may be a lot of unanticipated uses for it!
Oct 11 2009
prev sibling next sibling parent reply Ellery Newcomer <ellery-newcomer utulsa.edu> writes:
Walter Bright wrote:
 In my discussions with companies about adopting D, the major barrier
 that comes up over and over isn't Tango vs Phobos, dmd being GPL,
 debugger support, libraries, bugs, etc., although those are important.
 
 It's the IDE.
 
 They say that the productivity gains of D's improvements are
 overbalanced by the loss of productivity by moving away from an IDE. And
 what is it about an IDE that is so productive? Intellisense (Microsoft's
 word for autocompletion).
 
 So, while I'm not going to be writing an IDE, I figure that dmd can
 help. dmd already puts out .doc and .di files. How about putting out an
 xml file giving all the information needed for an IDE to implement
 autocompletion? There'd be one .xml file generated per .d source file.
 
 The nice thing about an xml file is while D is relatively easy to parse,
 xml is trivial. Furthermore, an xml format would be fairly robust in the
 face of changes to D syntax.
 
 What do you think?

Well, that's a better solution than reimplementing semantic analysis in the ide. If you make it, I will stop trying to do the latter. In the xml, will we see ct stuff and other transformations that DMD performs on the source expanded? [very very minor] concerns: standardized? DMD derivatives will have it, what about hypothetical other D implementations? If your ide can't see or doesn't have compiler, it won't be able to do much (erm duh) All in all, I think it would be the bomb. I'd even volunteer to help implementing it if I thought my code contributions would do less harm than good.
Oct 10 2009
next sibling parent reply Walter Bright <newshound1 digitalmars.com> writes:
Ellery Newcomer wrote:
 Well, that's a better solution than reimplementing semantic analysis in
 the ide. If you make it, I will stop trying to do the latter.

That's what I wanted to hear.
 In the xml, will we see ct stuff and other transformations that DMD
 performs on the source expanded?

ct stuff? What is that? Won't see dmd operations on the source expanded. What you'll see is basically what ddoc generates, but in a machine readable format. I.e. you'll see function names, with their types, line number, comment, etc. Essentially what intellisense would pop up.
 [very very minor] concerns:
 
 standardized? DMD derivatives will have it, what about hypothetical
 other D implementations?

It would be part of the dmd front end, so all D compilers based on it would have it.
 If your ide can't see or doesn't have compiler, it won't be able to do
 much (erm duh)

Yeah, but without a compiler why edit D source? <g>
 All in all, I think it would be the bomb. I'd even volunteer to help
 implementing it if I thought my code contributions would do less harm
 than good.

I don't think it would be hard to implement. But if you want to contribute, how about a JSON parser for phobos? You'll need one anyway for your IDE. BTW, JSON parsing comes for free with javascript. Why not incorporate dmdscript into your IDE as its extension language?
Oct 10 2009
next sibling parent reply Ellery Newcomer <ellery-newcomer utulsa.edu> writes:
Walter Bright wrote:
 Ellery Newcomer wrote:
 Well, that's a better solution than reimplementing semantic analysis in
 the ide. If you make it, I will stop trying to do the latter.


I made it to the symbol table ..
 
 In the xml, will we see ct stuff and other transformations that DMD
 performs on the source expanded?

ct stuff? What is that? Won't see dmd operations on the source expanded. What you'll see is basically what ddoc generates, but in a machine readable format. I.e. you'll see function names, with their types, line number, comment, etc. Essentially what intellisense would pop up.

ctfe. compile time (weird connection?). what do string mixins evaluate to? can I look at their result from the ide? what do templates expand to? what does this here alias/typedef represent? what does this here typeof expand to? what does this here c-style type normalize to (in d-style)? As for other transformations, it seemed like Ary had some neat tricks in descent that showed things like int i; going to int i = 0; etc. maybe wistful thinking. while we're at it, when I see a symbol, can I find its type? can I find every symbol that would follow it in a dot list/exp? when I see a symbol, can I find everywhere it's used? when I see a scope, can I see every symbol that's in it? when I see a module, can I find everywhere it's imported? can I see exactly what symbols are pulled in? Can I perform analysis to show me where those dang cyclic dependencies are? when I see source code, can I perform a simple walk over the xml to format it?
 It would be part of the dmd front end, so all D compilers based on it
 would have it.

How about the Intel D compiler? (It's going to happen. You know it will)
 
 Yeah, but without a compiler why edit D source? <g>
 

Weird users is the best answer I can offer. It happens. Also, coming from the java IDEs, I'm feeling apprehensive about integration on disparate platforms and whatnot. There's multiple ways the compiler could not be there.
 All in all, I think it would be the bomb. I'd even volunteer to help
 implementing it if I thought my code contributions would do less harm
 than good.

I don't think it would be hard to implement. But if you want to contribute, how about a JSON parser for phobos? You'll need one anyway for your IDE. BTW, JSON parsing comes for free with javascript. Why not incorporate dmdscript into your IDE as its extension language?

<g> sorry. my target is netbeans. Although I could probably whip up something quick in ANTLR if I really needed JSON in D.
Oct 10 2009
parent reply Walter Bright <newshound1 digitalmars.com> writes:
Ellery Newcomer wrote:
 ctfe. compile time (weird connection?). what do string mixins evaluate
 to?

No
 can I look at their result from the ide?

No
 what do templates expand
 to?

No
 what does this here alias/typedef represent?

Yes
 what does this here
 typeof expand to?

No
 what does this here c-style type normalize to (in
 d-style)?

No
 As for other transformations, it seemed like Ary had some neat tricks in
 descent that showed things like int i; going to int i = 0; etc. maybe
 wistful thinking.
 
 while we're at it,
 
 when I see a symbol, can I find its type?

Yes
 can I find every symbol that
 would follow it in a dot list/exp?

Yes
 when I see a symbol, can I find everywhere it's used?

No, but could be added
 when I see a scope, can I see every symbol that's in it?

Yes
 when I see a module, can I find everywhere it's imported?

Yes
 can I see exactly what symbols are pulled in?

No, but could be added
 Can I perform analysis to
 show me where those dang cyclic dependencies are?

Don't know
 when I see source code, can I perform a simple walk over the xml to
 format it?

No Think of what it provides as very similar to what ddoc does, except that instead of being in a human-readable format it would be a machine-readable one. In other words, for each module you'll be able to get . all the symbols in that module, and the members of those symbols (recursively) . the file/line of the source location of each symbol . the ddoc comment for each symbol . the type of each symbol Things could be added over time, I was just thinking of this for starters.
Oct 10 2009
next sibling parent reply Lutger <lutger.blijdestijn gmail.com> writes:
Walter Bright wrote:

...
 
 Think of what it provides as very similar to what ddoc does, except that
 instead of being in a human-readable format it would be a
 machine-readable one.
 
 In other words, for each module you'll be able to get
 
 . all the symbols in that module, and the members of those symbols
 (recursively)
 . the file/line of the source location of each symbol
 . the ddoc comment for each symbol
 . the type of each symbol
 
 Things could be added over time, I was just thinking of this for starters.

What about file/line/column of the symbol? Is this much work / hard work to add?
Oct 11 2009
parent reply Walter Bright <newshound1 digitalmars.com> writes:
Lutger wrote:
 What about file/line/column of the symbol? Is this much work / hard work to 
 add? 

file/line of course, but I don't see a point to column.
Oct 11 2009
next sibling parent reply "Nick Sabalausky" <a a.a> writes:
"Walter Bright" <newshound1 digitalmars.com> wrote in message 
news:has92u$1vum$1 digitalmars.com...
 Lutger wrote:
 What about file/line/column of the symbol? Is this much work / hard work 
 to add?

file/line of course, but I don't see a point to column.

So the IDE knows where it is and can actually do things with it, instead of just knowing "Well, it's somewhere around here-ish."
Oct 11 2009
parent reply Andrei Alexandrescu <SeeWebsiteForEmail erdani.org> writes:
Nick Sabalausky wrote:
 "Walter Bright" <newshound1 digitalmars.com> wrote in message 
 news:has92u$1vum$1 digitalmars.com...
 Lutger wrote:
 What about file/line/column of the symbol? Is this much work / hard work 
 to add?


So the IDE knows where it is and can actually do things with it, instead of just knowing "Well, it's somewhere around here-ish."

And what should the tab size be? >:o) Andrei
Oct 11 2009
next sibling parent Christopher Wright <dhasenan gmail.com> writes:
Andrei Alexandrescu wrote:
 Nick Sabalausky wrote:
 "Walter Bright" <newshound1 digitalmars.com> wrote in message 
 news:has92u$1vum$1 digitalmars.com...
 Lutger wrote:
 What about file/line/column of the symbol? Is this much work / hard 
 work to add?


So the IDE knows where it is and can actually do things with it, instead of just knowing "Well, it's somewhere around here-ish."

And what should the tab size be? >:o)

Let's see, how many characters are in a tab character?
Oct 11 2009
prev sibling parent "Nick Sabalausky" <a a.a> writes:
"Andrei Alexandrescu" <SeeWebsiteForEmail erdani.org> wrote in message 
news:hasodv$dgl$3 digitalmars.com...
 Nick Sabalausky wrote:
 "Walter Bright" <newshound1 digitalmars.com> wrote in message 
 news:has92u$1vum$1 digitalmars.com...
 Lutger wrote:
 What about file/line/column of the symbol? Is this much work / hard 
 work to add?


So the IDE knows where it is and can actually do things with it, instead of just knowing "Well, it's somewhere around here-ish."

And what should the tab size be? >:o)

No need to worry about that. It should just be counted as one character. Granted, that does mean it wouldn't really be "column" in a strict sense, but it would be very useful.
Oct 11 2009
prev sibling parent reply Walter Bright <newshound1 digitalmars.com> writes:
Leandro Lucarella wrote:
 Walter Bright, el 11 de octubre a las 02:38 me escribiste:
 Lutger wrote:
 What about file/line/column of the symbol? Is this much work /
 hard work to add?


See Clang error messages: http://clang.llvm.org/diagnostics.html That's *nice* =)

I agree, it looks good on paper. In fact, I implemented it in the C and C++ compiler from the beginning (1982 or so). It's still in dmc, try it - it'll print out the error message, followed by the source text of the offending line, followed by a ^ under where things went wrong. Nobody cared. Nobody has ever commented on it - and there have been hundreds of thousands of users of it. No magazine review ever mentioned it. When I mention it to people as "cool, look at this" they never respond. When the conversation is about the quality of error messages, that feature never comes up. So I dropped it for dmd. Nobody noticed. Nobody asked why it was done for dmc, and not for dmd. Nobody asked for it. Nothing. (Until now.) So I am hard pressed to believe this is a worthwhile feature. There is a cost to it in memory consumption and compiler execution time, so it's not quite free.
Oct 11 2009
parent Yigal Chripun <yigal100 gmail.com> writes:
On 11/10/2009 23:13, Walter Bright wrote:
 Leandro Lucarella wrote:
 Walter Bright, el 11 de octubre a las 02:38 me escribiste:
 Lutger wrote:
 What about file/line/column of the symbol? Is this much work /
 hard work to add?


See Clang error messages: http://clang.llvm.org/diagnostics.html That's *nice* =)

I agree, it looks good on paper. In fact, I implemented it in the C and C++ compiler from the beginning (1982 or so). It's still in dmc, try it - it'll print out the error message, followed by the source text of the offending line, followed by a ^ under where things went wrong. Nobody cared. Nobody has ever commented on it - and there have been hundreds of thousands of users of it. No magazine review ever mentioned it. When I mention it to people as "cool, look at this" they never respond. When the conversation is about the quality of error messages, that feature never comes up. So I dropped it for dmd. Nobody noticed. Nobody asked why it was done for dmc, and not for dmd. Nobody asked for it. Nothing. (Until now.) So I am hard pressed to believe this is a worthwhile feature. There is a cost to it in memory consumption and compiler execution time, so it's not quite free.

You assume everyone who uses DMD also uses DMC which is not necessarily the case. More importantly, while this is a good feature, it is far better to have squiggly red lines in the IDE. I for one rely on those lines a lot.
Oct 11 2009
prev sibling next sibling parent reply =?ISO-8859-1?Q?=22J=E9r=F4me_M=2E_Berger=22?= <jeberger free.fr> writes:
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1; format=flowed
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable

Walter Bright wrote:
 Think of what it provides as very similar to what ddoc does, except tha=

 instead of being in a human-readable format it would be a=20
 machine-readable one.
=20
 In other words, for each module you'll be able to get
=20
 . all the symbols in that module, and the members of those symbols=20
 (recursively)

Including local variables for functions? Jerome --=20 mailto:jeberger free.fr http://jeberger.free.fr Jabber: jeberger jabber.fr
Oct 11 2009
parent reply Walter Bright <newshound1 digitalmars.com> writes:
Jrme M. Berger wrote:
 . all the symbols in that module, and the members of those symbols 
 (recursively)

Including local variables for functions?

That seems pointless, as they'll be inaccessible outside of the scope of the function.
Oct 11 2009
next sibling parent "Nick Sabalausky" <a a.a> writes:
"Walter Bright" <newshound1 digitalmars.com> wrote in message 
news:has947$1vum$2 digitalmars.com...
 Jrme M. Berger wrote:
 . all the symbols in that module, and the members of those symbols 
 (recursively)

Including local variables for functions?

That seems pointless, as they'll be inaccessible outside of the scope of the function.

void foo() { int bar; // big complex func here } User: Ok, IDE, Refactor->Rename->foo's "bar" to "baz"
Oct 11 2009
prev sibling next sibling parent =?ISO-8859-1?Q?=22J=E9r=F4me_M=2E_Berger=22?= <jeberger free.fr> writes:
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1; format=flowed
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable

Walter Bright wrote:
 J=E9r=F4me M. Berger wrote:
 . all the symbols in that module, and the members of those symbols=20
 (recursively)

Including local variables for functions?

That seems pointless, as they'll be inaccessible outside of the scope o=

 the function.

The point would be for smart autocompletion: type the beginning of=20 a variable name, hit the autocomplete key and the IDE offers you a=20 choice of the names available at that point, i.e: - Global symbols (including imported ones); - Class members if the function is a method; - Local variables. It's also useful for member completion: type "foo." and the IDE=20 offers you a list of members for foo. This requires knowing its=20 class even if it is a local... Jerome --=20 mailto:jeberger free.fr http://jeberger.free.fr Jabber: jeberger jabber.fr
Oct 11 2009
prev sibling parent BCS <none anon.com> writes:
Hello Walter,

 Jrme M. Berger wrote:
 
 . all the symbols in that module, and the members of those symbols
 (recursively)
 


of the function.

Good auto compleat needs a list of *Every* allowed identifier at any point in the code. Basicly the full symbol table.
Oct 12 2009
prev sibling next sibling parent Ellery Newcomer <ellery-newcomer utulsa.edu> writes:
There are several core features that I absolutely must have (because I
want them):

1. autocompletion. everywhere. for everything. including local
variables. And that's not just the *pop* this symbol is a <type> that
does <ddoc>. It includes the completion part. When I type foreach
Ctrl+Space, I get a generic foreach statement (which is consistent with
the current compiler's syntax).

2. usage finding. I'm at a symbol. I want to know everywhere it's used.
If it's a class, I want to know everywhere it's subclassed.

3. code formatting.

4. build system

5. syntax highlight and code folding (easy peasy, but necessary)

6. error reporting aka dem shquiggly red lines

7. import resolution.

On top of these are a bunch of peripheral features:
When you have 1, code navigation should come pretty easy.
When you have 2, renaming any variable should come pretty easy.

When I have problems with those dang cyclic dependencies, I might want
to be able to merge two modules together.

etc


What I wanted out of my semantic analysis was a complete syntax tree and
symbol table that could make all of these things possible. If I can get
this direct from the compiler, it would obviously save me several years
of work and "yeah, this doesn't even try to be compatible" problems.


Walter Bright wrote:
 Ellery Newcomer wrote:
 ctfe. compile time (weird connection?). what do string mixins evaluate
 to?

No
 can I look at their result from the ide?

No

Well I want this feature.
 
 what do templates expand
 to?

No
 what does this here alias/typedef represent?

Yes

Good.
 what does this here
 typeof expand to?

No
 what does this here c-style type normalize to (in
 d-style)?

No

Well I want this feature.
 As for other transformations, it seemed like Ary had some neat tricks in
 descent that showed things like int i; going to int i = 0; etc. maybe
 wistful thinking.

 while we're at it,

 when I see a symbol, can I find its type?

Yes

Good.
 
 can I find every symbol that
 would follow it in a dot list/exp?

Yes

Good.
 
 when I see a symbol, can I find everywhere it's used?

No, but could be added

Good.
 when I see a scope, can I see every symbol that's in it?

Yes

Good.
 when I see a module, can I find everywhere it's imported?

Yes

Good.
 
 can I see exactly what symbols are pulled in?

No, but could be added

Good.
 
 Can I perform analysis to
 show me where those dang cyclic dependencies are?

Don't know

If I have the previous two I think I can do it. I might need a view of the code after compile time expansions. Oh, and I'd obviously need to see which modules have static ctors/dtors.
 when I see source code, can I perform a simple walk over the xml to
 format it?

No Think of what it provides as very similar to what ddoc does, except that instead of being in a human-readable format it would be a machine-readable one.

Yep, we're thinking of different things.
 
 In other words, for each module you'll be able to get
 
 . all the symbols in that module, and the members of those symbols
 (recursively)
 . the file/line of the source location of each symbol
 . the ddoc comment for each symbol
 . the type of each symbol
 
 Things could be added over time, I was just thinking of this for starters.

Oct 11 2009
prev sibling parent reply BCS <none anon.com> writes:
Hello Walter,

 
 Think of what it provides as very similar to what ddoc does, except
 that instead of being in a human-readable format it would be a
 machine-readable one.

If that's what you are planning, I can tell you right now it's not enough. Much of the things IDEs need is not present in ddoc. Just off hand, I'd say more than 50% of the IDE features I use from C#/VS would need (much) more than ddoc has. What would be better is a dump of a fully annotated AST from just before it's passed off for optimization and code gen.
Oct 12 2009
parent Ellery Newcomer <ellery-newcomer utulsa.edu> writes:
BCS wrote:
 Hello Walter,
 
 What would be better is a dump of a
 fully annotated AST from just before it's passed off for optimization
 and code gen.
 
 

To reiterate my offer, I would be willing to implement this in DMD provided I can then assume that any modern D compiler will have it.
Oct 12 2009
prev sibling next sibling parent reply Jeremie Pelletier <jeremiep gmail.com> writes:
Walter Bright wrote:
 But if you want to contribute, how about a JSON parser for phobos? 
 You'll need one anyway for your IDE.
 
 BTW, JSON parsing comes for free with javascript. Why not incorporate 
 dmdscript into your IDE as its extension language?

The official JSON website has tons of bindings, here's the C one: http://fara.cs.uni-potsdam.de/~jsg/json_parser/ I'm gonna try and get it converted to D over the weekend.
Oct 10 2009
next sibling parent Walter Bright <newshound1 digitalmars.com> writes:
Jeremie Pelletier wrote:
 The official JSON website has tons of bindings, here's the C one:
 
 http://fara.cs.uni-potsdam.de/~jsg/json_parser/
 
 I'm gonna try and get it converted to D over the weekend.

It has a test suite with it!
Oct 10 2009
prev sibling next sibling parent reply Christopher Wright <dhasenan gmail.com> writes:
Jeremie Pelletier wrote:
 Walter Bright wrote:
 But if you want to contribute, how about a JSON parser for phobos? 
 You'll need one anyway for your IDE.

 BTW, JSON parsing comes for free with javascript. Why not incorporate 
 dmdscript into your IDE as its extension language?

The official JSON website has tons of bindings, here's the C one: http://fara.cs.uni-potsdam.de/~jsg/json_parser/ I'm gonna try and get it converted to D over the weekend.

Tango already has a good JSON parser, but I imagine its license (BSD) doesn't meet Walter's requirements.
Oct 11 2009
parent Walter Bright <newshound1 digitalmars.com> writes:
Moritz Warning wrote:
 I wrote a JSON parser that is Public Domain and also very fast.
 It may be helpful. 
 http://dsource.org/projects/tango/ticket/1491

You need to get this added to the list at http://json.org/
Oct 11 2009
prev sibling parent reply Jeremie Pelletier <jeremiep gmail.com> writes:
Jeremie Pelletier wrote:
 Walter Bright wrote:
 But if you want to contribute, how about a JSON parser for phobos? 
 You'll need one anyway for your IDE.

 BTW, JSON parsing comes for free with javascript. Why not incorporate 
 dmdscript into your IDE as its extension language?

The official JSON website has tons of bindings, here's the C one: http://fara.cs.uni-potsdam.de/~jsg/json_parser/ I'm gonna try and get it converted to D over the weekend.

After some digging into the C sources, I decided I didn't like the way they did it. I wanted the simplicity and elegance of JSON I use with jQuery ($.toJSON and $.parseJSON). I looked again at the simple graphs on json.org and decided it was simple enough to write a D parser from scratch, here's what I have after a few hours of work, both methods works, although I didn't thoroughly tested them yet. http://pastebin.com/f25b67726 Let me know what you think and feel free to add it to phobos if you like it :) Jeremie
Oct 11 2009
parent reply Walter Bright <newshound1 digitalmars.com> writes:
Jeremie Pelletier wrote:
 Jeremie Pelletier wrote:
 Walter Bright wrote:
 But if you want to contribute, how about a JSON parser for phobos? 
 You'll need one anyway for your IDE.

 BTW, JSON parsing comes for free with javascript. Why not incorporate 
 dmdscript into your IDE as its extension language?

The official JSON website has tons of bindings, here's the C one: http://fara.cs.uni-potsdam.de/~jsg/json_parser/ I'm gonna try and get it converted to D over the weekend.

After some digging into the C sources, I decided I didn't like the way they did it. I wanted the simplicity and elegance of JSON I use with jQuery ($.toJSON and $.parseJSON). I looked again at the simple graphs on json.org and decided it was simple enough to write a D parser from scratch, here's what I have after a few hours of work, both methods works, although I didn't thoroughly tested them yet. http://pastebin.com/f25b67726 Let me know what you think and feel free to add it to phobos if you like it :) Jeremie

Looks nice! But it needs to be ported to Phobos, and needs unit tests!
Oct 11 2009
parent Jeremie Pelletier <jeremiep gmail.com> writes:
Walter Bright wrote:
 Jeremie Pelletier wrote:
 Jeremie Pelletier wrote:
 Walter Bright wrote:
 But if you want to contribute, how about a JSON parser for phobos? 
 You'll need one anyway for your IDE.

 BTW, JSON parsing comes for free with javascript. Why not 
 incorporate dmdscript into your IDE as its extension language?

The official JSON website has tons of bindings, here's the C one: http://fara.cs.uni-potsdam.de/~jsg/json_parser/ I'm gonna try and get it converted to D over the weekend.

After some digging into the C sources, I decided I didn't like the way they did it. I wanted the simplicity and elegance of JSON I use with jQuery ($.toJSON and $.parseJSON). I looked again at the simple graphs on json.org and decided it was simple enough to write a D parser from scratch, here's what I have after a few hours of work, both methods works, although I didn't thoroughly tested them yet. http://pastebin.com/f25b67726 Let me know what you think and feel free to add it to phobos if you like it :) Jeremie

Looks nice! But it needs to be ported to Phobos, and needs unit tests!

Here you go: http://pastebin.com/f64b75abb Compiled on dmd 2.033 against phobos with a unittest and it works great :) I also needed to port my unicode character handling module to phobos because the one currently used doesn't have a isUniControl() method: http://pastebin.com/fe47f274 Jeremie
Oct 11 2009
prev sibling parent reply BCS <none anon.com> writes:
Hello Walter,

 Ellery Newcomer wrote:
 
 In the xml, will we see ct stuff and other transformations that DMD
 performs on the source expanded?
 

expanded. What you'll see is basically what ddoc generates, but in a machine readable format. I.e. you'll see function names, with their types, line number, comment, etc. Essentially what intellisense would pop up.

template Foo (T) { T map(T[]) { ... } } class Bar { mixin Foo!(int); } void main() { Bar bar; bar. /// will the IDE have to do anything special to see 'map' or will it just be listed as another function? }
 If your ide can't see or doesn't have compiler, it won't be able to
 do much (erm duh)
 


My normal setup is running eclipse on a windows box to edit files on a linux box (via file share) where I compile things (I need some other stuff from linux). For this, I have no need for a compiler on the box with the IDE unless the IDE needs it solely for the auto-complete.
Oct 12 2009
parent Christopher Wright <dhasenan gmail.com> writes:
BCS wrote:
 template Foo (T) { T map(T[]) { ... } }
 
 class Bar { mixin Foo!(int); }
 
 void main()
 {
   Bar bar;
   bar. /// will the IDE have to do anything special to see 'map' or will 
 it just be listed as another function?
 }

Probably it would just work. On the other hand, if you had this: T manipulate(T)(T value) { ... } MyObject foo; manipulate(foo). // IDE dies here The compiler wouldn't have completion on the line of code you're currently editing, since it's a syntax error. The IDE won't know anything about D and so can't determine what the return type of manipulate() is.
Oct 12 2009
prev sibling next sibling parent Moritz Warning <moritzwarning web.de> writes:
On Sun, 11 Oct 2009 09:04:50 -0400, Christopher Wright wrote:

 Jeremie Pelletier wrote:
 Walter Bright wrote:
 But if you want to contribute, how about a JSON parser for phobos?
 You'll need one anyway for your IDE.

 BTW, JSON parsing comes for free with javascript. Why not incorporate
 dmdscript into your IDE as its extension language?

The official JSON website has tons of bindings, here's the C one: http://fara.cs.uni-potsdam.de/~jsg/json_parser/ I'm gonna try and get it converted to D over the weekend.

Tango already has a good JSON parser, but I imagine its license (BSD) doesn't meet Walter's requirements.

I wrote a JSON parser that is Public Domain and also very fast. It may be helpful. http://dsource.org/projects/tango/ticket/1491 There are also a few others around.
Oct 11 2009
prev sibling next sibling parent Moritz Warning <moritzwarning web.de> writes:
On Sun, 11 Oct 2009 21:25:57 +0000, Moritz Warning wrote:

 On Sun, 11 Oct 2009 09:04:50 -0400, Christopher Wright wrote:
 
 Jeremie Pelletier wrote:
 Walter Bright wrote:
 But if you want to contribute, how about a JSON parser for phobos?
 You'll need one anyway for your IDE.

 BTW, JSON parsing comes for free with javascript. Why not incorporate
 dmdscript into your IDE as its extension language?

The official JSON website has tons of bindings, here's the C one: http://fara.cs.uni-potsdam.de/~jsg/json_parser/ I'm gonna try and get it converted to D over the weekend.

Tango already has a good JSON parser, but I imagine its license (BSD) doesn't meet Walter's requirements.

I wrote a JSON parser that is Public Domain and also very fast. It may be helpful. http://dsource.org/projects/tango/ticket/1491 There are also a few others around.

Uh, it says BSD. But I'm fine with PB.
Oct 11 2009
prev sibling parent Moritz Warning <moritzwarning web.de> writes:
On Sun, 11 Oct 2009 14:58:06 -0700, Walter Bright wrote:

 Moritz Warning wrote:
 I wrote a JSON parser that is Public Domain and also very fast. It may
 be helpful.
 http://dsource.org/projects/tango/ticket/1491

You need to get this added to the list at http://json.org/

It would need to write a replacement for the un-/escape routines from Tango first. But so far it sounds like a good idea.
Oct 11 2009
prev sibling next sibling parent Jordan Miner <jminer2613 nospam.students.pcci.edu> writes:
Walter Bright Wrote:

 In my discussions with companies about adopting D, the major barrier 
 that comes up over and over isn't Tango vs Phobos, dmd being GPL, 
 debugger support, libraries, bugs, etc., although those are important.
 
 It's the IDE.
 
 They say that the productivity gains of D's improvements are 
 overbalanced by the loss of productivity by moving away from an IDE. And 
 what is it about an IDE that is so productive? Intellisense (Microsoft's 
 word for autocompletion).
 
 So, while I'm not going to be writing an IDE, I figure that dmd can 
 help. dmd already puts out .doc and .di files. How about putting out an 
 xml file giving all the information needed for an IDE to implement 
 autocompletion? There'd be one .xml file generated per .d source file.
 
 The nice thing about an xml file is while D is relatively easy to parse, 
 xml is trivial. Furthermore, an xml format would be fairly robust in the 
 face of changes to D syntax.
 
 What do you think?

This is a great idea. If I every work on an IDE, I would use this. (I don't use IDEs. I like them, but I haven't found one that keeps out of my way enough.) And this output isn't just useful for IDEs. Once I get time a couple months from now, I am going to finish a program that generates much better documentation files than Ddoc. So far, I have Ddoc generate custom output that I parse, but it still isn't very machine readable. Instead, I would use this provided it has all the information that Ddoc generates.
Oct 10 2009
prev sibling next sibling parent reply bearophile <bearophileHUGS lycos.com> writes:
Walter Bright:

 So, while I'm not going to be writing an IDE, I figure that dmd can 
 help. dmd already puts out .doc and .di files. How about putting out an 
 xml file giving all the information needed for an IDE to implement 
 autocompletion? There'd be one .xml file generated per .d source file.

An IDE is designed to not just let you explore and understand already written code, but to modify the code too. So such data changes as the programmer writes the code. So it may be positive for the IDE to have ways to query DMD and receive a smaller, faster and more focused amount of data regarding something. Otherwise generating all the data every few moments may slow down things. Eventually a good thing is to go the route chosen by LLVM, splitting the compiler in parts, so the IDE can use some of those parts in a mode direct way. Even LDC, that's based on LLVM, follows the monolithic design of GCC and DMD, but I am certain that today a loosely coupled design similar to LLVM is better. Bye, bearophile
Oct 10 2009
parent Walter Bright <newshound1 digitalmars.com> writes:
bearophile wrote:
 An IDE is designed to not just let you explore and understand already
 written code, but to modify the code too. So such data changes as the
 programmer writes the code. So it may be positive for the IDE to have
 ways to query DMD and receive a smaller, faster and more focused
 amount of data regarding something. Otherwise generating all the data
 every few moments may slow down things.

I know this won't help for syntax highlighting or working within a source file that may only be partially parsable. But for an easy way to do autocompletion and throwing up 'tooltip' documentation on library functions, etc., it should be very powerful. Generating the data on imports should be very fast, and should not be necessary every few moments (only when those imported source files change).
 Eventually a good thing is to go the route chosen by LLVM, splitting
 the compiler in parts, so the IDE can use some of those parts in a
 mode direct way. Even LDC, that's based on LLVM, follows the
 monolithic design of GCC and DMD, but I am certain that today a
 loosely coupled design similar to LLVM is better.

That's far more complex. I'm looking for ways to cover 90% of the territory with some simple, straightforward means.
Oct 10 2009
prev sibling next sibling parent tomqyp <tomqyp gmail.com> writes:
Walter Bright д:

 In my discussions with companies about adopting D, the major barrier 
 that comes up over and over isn't Tango vs Phobos, dmd being GPL, 
 debugger support, libraries, bugs, etc., although those are important.
 
 It's the IDE.
 
 They say that the productivity gains of D's improvements are 
 overbalanced by the loss of productivity by moving away from an IDE. And 
 what is it about an IDE that is so productive? Intellisense (Microsoft's 
 word for autocompletion).
 
 So, while I'm not going to be writing an IDE, I figure that dmd can 
 help. dmd already puts out .doc and .di files. How about putting out an 
 xml file giving all the information needed for an IDE to implement 
 autocompletion? There'd be one .xml file generated per .d source file.
 
 The nice thing about an xml file is while D is relatively easy to parse, 
 xml is trivial. Furthermore, an xml format would be fairly robust in the 
 face of changes to D syntax.
 
 What do you think?

See here http://www.digitalmars.com/webnews/newsgroups.php?art_group=digitalmars.D&article_id=93086
Oct 11 2009
prev sibling next sibling parent dolive <dolive89 sina.com> writes:
Walter Bright д:

 In my discussions with companies about adopting D, the major barrier 
 that comes up over and over isn't Tango vs Phobos, dmd being GPL, 
 debugger support, libraries, bugs, etc., although those are important.
 
 It's the IDE.
 
 They say that the productivity gains of D's improvements are 
 overbalanced by the loss of productivity by moving away from an IDE. And 
 what is it about an IDE that is so productive? Intellisense (Microsoft's 
 word for autocompletion).
 
 So, while I'm not going to be writing an IDE, I figure that dmd can 
 help. dmd already puts out .doc and .di files. How about putting out an 
 xml file giving all the information needed for an IDE to implement 
 autocompletion? There'd be one .xml file generated per .d source file.
 
 The nice thing about an xml file is while D is relatively easy to parse, 
 xml is trivial. Furthermore, an xml format would be fairly robust in the 
 face of changes to D syntax.
 
 What do you think?

Hope is that one be able to parse all the relevant d libraries, and dynamically generated xml file, rather than merely dmd parse to an xml file. bye dolive
Oct 11 2009
prev sibling next sibling parent reply Robert Clipsham <robert octarineparrot.com> writes:
Walter Bright wrote:
 In my discussions with companies about adopting D, the major barrier 
 that comes up over and over isn't Tango vs Phobos, dmd being GPL, 
 debugger support, libraries, bugs, etc., although those are important.
 
 It's the IDE.
 
 They say that the productivity gains of D's improvements are 
 overbalanced by the loss of productivity by moving away from an IDE. And 
 what is it about an IDE that is so productive? Intellisense (Microsoft's 
 word for autocompletion).
 
 So, while I'm not going to be writing an IDE, I figure that dmd can 
 help. dmd already puts out .doc and .di files. How about putting out an 
 xml file giving all the information needed for an IDE to implement 
 autocompletion? There'd be one .xml file generated per .d source file.
 
 The nice thing about an xml file is while D is relatively easy to parse, 
 xml is trivial. Furthermore, an xml format would be fairly robust in the 
 face of changes to D syntax.
 
 What do you think?

How well will this work with partially parsable files? Will it recover and continue parsing the rest of the file, so all the gained data is still there in the rest of the file, or will it give an error and make the rest of the file lack autocompletion? Or is the idea to merge the newly parsed output with an old version so everything still has autocompletion but the line in question has an error? Will it be possible to pass individual statements (maybe along with a previous symbol table) to dmd to save reparsing the whole file? Other than that is sounds like a great idea, I can't wait for someone to write an omnicompletion plugin for vim using this!
Oct 11 2009
next sibling parent Jeremie Pelletier <jeremiep gmail.com> writes:
Robert Clipsham wrote:
 Walter Bright wrote:
 In my discussions with companies about adopting D, the major barrier 
 that comes up over and over isn't Tango vs Phobos, dmd being GPL, 
 debugger support, libraries, bugs, etc., although those are important.

 It's the IDE.

 They say that the productivity gains of D's improvements are 
 overbalanced by the loss of productivity by moving away from an IDE. 
 And what is it about an IDE that is so productive? Intellisense 
 (Microsoft's word for autocompletion).

 So, while I'm not going to be writing an IDE, I figure that dmd can 
 help. dmd already puts out .doc and .di files. How about putting out 
 an xml file giving all the information needed for an IDE to implement 
 autocompletion? There'd be one .xml file generated per .d source file.

 The nice thing about an xml file is while D is relatively easy to 
 parse, xml is trivial. Furthermore, an xml format would be fairly 
 robust in the face of changes to D syntax.

 What do you think?

How well will this work with partially parsable files? Will it recover and continue parsing the rest of the file, so all the gained data is still there in the rest of the file, or will it give an error and make the rest of the file lack autocompletion? Or is the idea to merge the newly parsed output with an old version so everything still has autocompletion but the line in question has an error? Will it be possible to pass individual statements (maybe along with a previous symbol table) to dmd to save reparsing the whole file? Other than that is sounds like a great idea, I can't wait for someone to write an omnicompletion plugin for vim using this!

That would be hard, if its a missing } then the entire parse tree will be in the wrong scope. The best the compiler can do is report an error at line x offset y and let the IDE highlight it, while it keeps on working with the info from the last successful analysis.
Oct 11 2009
prev sibling parent reply Walter Bright <newshound1 digitalmars.com> writes:
Robert Clipsham wrote:
 How well will this work with partially parsable files?

Probably not very well. This would work best with getting information from modules other than the one being edited.
Oct 11 2009
parent reply BCS <none anon.com> writes:
Hello Walter,

 Robert Clipsham wrote:
 
 How well will this work with partially parsable files?
 

from modules other than the one being edited.

Ouch. There goes about half of what people will want.
Oct 12 2009
parent reply Walter Bright <newshound1 digitalmars.com> writes:
BCS wrote:
 Ouch. There goes about half of what people will want.

Right, it's about half. But it's an easy half to get.
Oct 12 2009
parent reply BCS <none anon.com> writes:
Hello Walter,

 BCS wrote:
 
 Hello Walter,
 Probably not very well. This would work best with getting information
 from modules other than the one being edited.



Are you thinking of the partially parsed bit or the only in other modules bit? I was looking at the second.
Oct 12 2009
parent Walter Bright <newshound1 digitalmars.com> writes:
BCS wrote:
 Hello Walter,
 
 BCS wrote:

 Hello Walter,
 Probably not very well. This would work best with getting information
 from modules other than the one being edited.



Are you thinking of the partially parsed bit or the only in other modules bit? I was looking at the second.

Right, the second.
Oct 12 2009
prev sibling next sibling parent reply Frank Benoit <keinfarbton googlemail.com> writes:
Walter Bright schrieb:
 They say that the productivity gains of D's improvements are
 overbalanced by the loss of productivity by moving away from an IDE. And
 what is it about an IDE that is so productive?

If you use Eclipse for Java, you have: - Debugger in place - Automatic builder, compile on save * Jump to line from error list * Jump to declaration - Show JavaDoc in tooltip, even in autocompletion - Show hierarchy tree - Autocompletion - Quick assist, e.g. - assign ctor parameter to new field - extract selected text into local variable - Mark source portion, extract to method, the IDE evaluates the needed parameters and return value - ... There is so much more. But the main thing is, you are not only able to use grep and friends on the pure text level. With an IDE you have semantic support. This makes refactoring your code so much easier. You can say "rename this method" and it works, all references to this method are also altered. "Move this inner class to a top level class in that package", "Derive from that class, yes add the needed ctors". There is even an API to automate refactorings. I think Descent is the right way. But here, a port of DMD is directly integrated into the plugin. To put more manpower in this project would be the best way imo.
Oct 11 2009
next sibling parent reply Jacob Carlborg <doob me.com> writes:
On 10/11/09 11:56, Frank Benoit wrote:
 Walter Bright schrieb:
 They say that the productivity gains of D's improvements are
 overbalanced by the loss of productivity by moving away from an IDE. And
 what is it about an IDE that is so productive?

If you use Eclipse for Java, you have: - Debugger in place - Automatic builder, compile on save * Jump to line from error list * Jump to declaration - Show JavaDoc in tooltip, even in autocompletion - Show hierarchy tree - Autocompletion - Quick assist, e.g. - assign ctor parameter to new field - extract selected text into local variable - Mark source portion, extract to method, the IDE evaluates the needed parameters and return value - ... There is so much more. But the main thing is, you are not only able to use grep and friends on the pure text level. With an IDE you have semantic support. This makes refactoring your code so much easier. You can say "rename this method" and it works, all references to this method are also altered. "Move this inner class to a top level class in that package", "Derive from that class, yes add the needed ctors". There is even an API to automate refactorings. I think Descent is the right way. But here, a port of DMD is directly integrated into the plugin. To put more manpower in this project would be the best way imo.

I completely agree. I don't know if it would be better to have the parts of dmd that descent needs in a separate library to avoid porting half of dmd to java.
Oct 11 2009
parent Jeremie Pelletier <jeremiep gmail.com> writes:
Jacob Carlborg wrote:
 On 10/11/09 11:56, Frank Benoit wrote:
 Walter Bright schrieb:
 They say that the productivity gains of D's improvements are
 overbalanced by the loss of productivity by moving away from an IDE. And
 what is it about an IDE that is so productive?

If you use Eclipse for Java, you have: - Debugger in place - Automatic builder, compile on save * Jump to line from error list * Jump to declaration - Show JavaDoc in tooltip, even in autocompletion - Show hierarchy tree - Autocompletion - Quick assist, e.g. - assign ctor parameter to new field - extract selected text into local variable - Mark source portion, extract to method, the IDE evaluates the needed parameters and return value - ... There is so much more. But the main thing is, you are not only able to use grep and friends on the pure text level. With an IDE you have semantic support. This makes refactoring your code so much easier. You can say "rename this method" and it works, all references to this method are also altered. "Move this inner class to a top level class in that package", "Derive from that class, yes add the needed ctors". There is even an API to automate refactorings. I think Descent is the right way. But here, a port of DMD is directly integrated into the plugin. To put more manpower in this project would be the best way imo.

I completely agree. I don't know if it would be better to have the parts of dmd that descent needs in a separate library to avoid porting half of dmd to java.

Which is why i suggested that next to the XML/JSON output there can be an API for plugins like descent to build on top of, instead of forking the entire compiler source making it near impossible to keep up with changes. In my opinion, more manpower needs to be put in dmd itself so more third party programs and plugins can use it directly, the goal is to make dmd more powerful while supporting more usages.
Oct 11 2009
prev sibling parent Walter Bright <newshound1 digitalmars.com> writes:
Frank Benoit wrote:
 I think Descent is the right way. But here, a port of DMD is directly
 integrated into the plugin. To put more manpower in this project would
 be the best way imo.

Eclipse is probably, along with VS, one of the two most powerful IDEs. But the JSON approach would also make things like Emacs usable with D with a basic level of autocomplete support, as well as the panopoly of simpler, more lightweight editors. JSON support also will not take away anything from efforts to integrate DMD into IDE front ends. It's more for IDEs that don't have the resources to do that.
Oct 11 2009
prev sibling next sibling parent reply language_fan <foo bar.com.invalid> writes:
Sat, 10 Oct 2009 18:19:56 -0700, Walter Bright thusly wrote:

 In my discussions with companies about adopting D, the major barrier
 that comes up over and over isn't Tango vs Phobos, dmd being GPL,
 debugger support, libraries, bugs, etc., although those are important.
 
 It's the IDE.
 
 They say that the productivity gains of D's improvements are
 overbalanced by the loss of productivity by moving away from an IDE. And
 what is it about an IDE that is so productive? Intellisense (Microsoft's
 word for autocompletion).
 
 So, while I'm not going to be writing an IDE, I figure that dmd can
 help. dmd already puts out .doc and .di files. How about putting out an
 xml file giving all the information needed for an IDE to implement
 autocompletion? There'd be one .xml file generated per .d source file.
 
 The nice thing about an xml file is while D is relatively easy to parse,
 xml is trivial. Furthermore, an xml format would be fairly robust in the
 face of changes to D syntax.
 
 What do you think?

Well since there is already a project working on an Eclipse plugin, I see little use for other IDEs at the moment. The D community is rather small and only a small amount of people are capable of developing and willing to donate their free time on free IDE development (commercial IDEs have small potential now that Netbeans/Eclipse/IntelliJ/KDevelop/Visual Studio dominate the market). So why not concentrate on fixing the spec and fixing compiler bugs instead of building a modest IDE support no one will use?
Oct 11 2009
next sibling parent Lutger <lutger.blijdestijn gmail.com> writes:
language_fan wrote:

 Sat, 10 Oct 2009 18:19:56 -0700, Walter Bright thusly wrote:
 
 In my discussions with companies about adopting D, the major barrier
 that comes up over and over isn't Tango vs Phobos, dmd being GPL,
 debugger support, libraries, bugs, etc., although those are important.
 
 It's the IDE.
 
 They say that the productivity gains of D's improvements are
 overbalanced by the loss of productivity by moving away from an IDE. And
 what is it about an IDE that is so productive? Intellisense (Microsoft's
 word for autocompletion).
 
 So, while I'm not going to be writing an IDE, I figure that dmd can
 help. dmd already puts out .doc and .di files. How about putting out an
 xml file giving all the information needed for an IDE to implement
 autocompletion? There'd be one .xml file generated per .d source file.
 
 The nice thing about an xml file is while D is relatively easy to parse,
 xml is trivial. Furthermore, an xml format would be fairly robust in the
 face of changes to D syntax.
 
 What do you think?

Well since there is already a project working on an Eclipse plugin, I see little use for other IDEs at the moment. The D community is rather small and only a small amount of people are capable of developing and willing to donate their free time on free IDE development (commercial IDEs have small potential now that Netbeans/Eclipse/IntelliJ/KDevelop/Visual Studio dominate the market). So why not concentrate on fixing the spec and fixing compiler bugs instead of building a modest IDE support no one will use?

Because people do see the use of other IDEs (counting vim here too as an IDE) and xml / json output is useful for more than just IDEs.
Oct 11 2009
prev sibling next sibling parent Jeremie Pelletier <jeremiep gmail.com> writes:
language_fan wrote:
 Sat, 10 Oct 2009 18:19:56 -0700, Walter Bright thusly wrote:
 
 In my discussions with companies about adopting D, the major barrier
 that comes up over and over isn't Tango vs Phobos, dmd being GPL,
 debugger support, libraries, bugs, etc., although those are important.

 It's the IDE.

 They say that the productivity gains of D's improvements are
 overbalanced by the loss of productivity by moving away from an IDE. And
 what is it about an IDE that is so productive? Intellisense (Microsoft's
 word for autocompletion).

 So, while I'm not going to be writing an IDE, I figure that dmd can
 help. dmd already puts out .doc and .di files. How about putting out an
 xml file giving all the information needed for an IDE to implement
 autocompletion? There'd be one .xml file generated per .d source file.

 The nice thing about an xml file is while D is relatively easy to parse,
 xml is trivial. Furthermore, an xml format would be fairly robust in the
 face of changes to D syntax.

 What do you think?

Well since there is already a project working on an Eclipse plugin, I see little use for other IDEs at the moment. The D community is rather small and only a small amount of people are capable of developing and willing to donate their free time on free IDE development (commercial IDEs have small potential now that Netbeans/Eclipse/IntelliJ/KDevelop/Visual Studio dominate the market). So why not concentrate on fixing the spec and fixing compiler bugs instead of building a modest IDE support no one will use?

Eclipse is heavy, slow and often unresponsive. I use poseidon myself because it is light and fast and I don't require much more from an IDE at the moment.
Oct 11 2009
prev sibling next sibling parent reply "Nick Sabalausky" <a a.a> writes:
"language_fan" <foo bar.com.invalid> wrote in message 
news:hasd5u$1fgu$1 digitalmars.com...
 Well since there is already a project working on an Eclipse plugin, I see
 little use for other IDEs at the moment. The D community is rather small
 and only a small amount of people are capable of developing and willing
 to donate their free time on free IDE development (commercial IDEs have
 small potential now that Netbeans/Eclipse/IntelliJ/KDevelop/Visual Studio
 dominate the market). So why not concentrate on fixing the spec and
 fixing compiler bugs instead of building a modest IDE support no one will
 use?

Any editor that is less responsive than notepad is useless to me, and I'm far from alone on that. Thus, we don't go anywhere near Eclipse, VS.NET, or anything along those lines (bunch of bloated garbage...and probably designed to get developers to buy fancier hardware and thus end up develop apps that require their users to buy fancier hardware).
Oct 11 2009
parent reply Ary Borenszweig <ary esperanto.org.ar> writes:
language_fan wrote:
 "Practical" languages
 have lots of boiler-plate, and I can easily generate hundreds of lines of 
 code with a couple of key combinations or mouse clicks.

Can you give some examples? I can only think of some that generate some lines of code, not hundreds.
Oct 13 2009
parent Lutger <lutger.blijdestijn gmail.com> writes:
Ary Borenszweig wrote:

 language_fan wrote:
  > "Practical" languages
 have lots of boiler-plate, and I can easily generate hundreds of lines of
 code with a couple of key combinations or mouse clicks.

Can you give some examples? I can only think of some that generate some lines of code, not hundreds.

linq-to-sql
Oct 13 2009
prev sibling next sibling parent reply language_fan <foo bar.com.invalid> writes:
Sun, 11 Oct 2009 12:44:08 -0400, Jeremie Pelletier thusly wrote:

 language_fan wrote:
 Well since there is already a project working on an Eclipse plugin, I
 see little use for other IDEs at the moment. The D community is rather
 small and only a small amount of people are capable of developing and
 willing to donate their free time on free IDE development (commercial
 IDEs have small potential now that
 Netbeans/Eclipse/IntelliJ/KDevelop/Visual Studio dominate the market).
 So why not concentrate on fixing the spec and fixing compiler bugs
 instead of building a modest IDE support no one will use?

Eclipse is heavy, slow and often unresponsive. I use poseidon myself because it is light and fast and I don't require much more from an IDE at the moment.

If you turn off all the advanced features of Eclipse (spell checking, interactive parsing & type checking etc), it will become a lot more responsive. You can even uninstall many of the plugins if you really do not need them. I recommend firing up the latest development build with the latest 1.6 jvm. It will take couple of seconds for the JIT to spot the hot spots after starting up. Of course Poseidon is faster *now* that it lacks all the advanced features, but once you start adding more, it will eventually grind to a halt.
Oct 12 2009
parent Michal Minich <michal minich.sk> writes:
 Eclipse is heavy, slow and often unresponsive. I use poseidon myself
 because it is light and fast and I don't require much more from an
 IDE at the moment.


You can try to download just bare Eclipse platform (which is just text editor) and install descent into it using Eclipse software updates. It starts up faster than C or Java version Eclipse and there is only D related stuff in the UI. http://download.eclipse.org/eclipse/downloads/drops/R-3.5.1-200909170800/index.php Under "Platform runtime binary"
Oct 12 2009
prev sibling next sibling parent reply language_fan <foo bar.com.invalid> writes:
Sun, 11 Oct 2009 17:01:03 -0400, Nick Sabalausky thusly wrote:

 "language_fan" <foo bar.com.invalid> wrote in message
 news:hasd5u$1fgu$1 digitalmars.com...
 Well since there is already a project working on an Eclipse plugin, I
 see little use for other IDEs at the moment. The D community is rather
 small and only a small amount of people are capable of developing and
 willing to donate their free time on free IDE development (commercial
 IDEs have small potential now that
 Netbeans/Eclipse/IntelliJ/KDevelop/Visual Studio dominate the market).
 So why not concentrate on fixing the spec and fixing compiler bugs
 instead of building a modest IDE support no one will use?

Any editor that is less responsive than notepad is useless to me, and I'm far from alone on that. Thus, we don't go anywhere near Eclipse, VS.NET, or anything along those lines (bunch of bloated garbage...and probably designed to get developers to buy fancier hardware and thus end up develop apps that require their users to buy fancier hardware).

Fine, if you are happy with your productivity. For me it was a natural choice. I started with notepad like editors, then moved to "programmer's editors" like crimson editor and jedit, soon discovered vim and emacs, and finally have settled down on Eclipse, Netbeans, Visual Studio, and IntelliJ IDEA. The productivity boost is enormous. "Practical" languages have lots of boiler-plate, and I can easily generate hundreds of lines of code with a couple of key combinations or mouse clicks. Another killer feature is the "intellisense" stuff. Having the ability to see a) inferred type b) integrated html rendered javadoc c) type correct class members etc. saves me hours of work time per day. YMMV
Oct 12 2009
parent reply "Nick Sabalausky" <a a.a> writes:
"language_fan" <foo bar.com.invalid> wrote in message 
news:hav02v$2162$4 digitalmars.com...
 Sun, 11 Oct 2009 17:01:03 -0400, Nick Sabalausky thusly wrote:

 "language_fan" <foo bar.com.invalid> wrote in message
 news:hasd5u$1fgu$1 digitalmars.com...
 Well since there is already a project working on an Eclipse plugin, I
 see little use for other IDEs at the moment. The D community is rather
 small and only a small amount of people are capable of developing and
 willing to donate their free time on free IDE development (commercial
 IDEs have small potential now that
 Netbeans/Eclipse/IntelliJ/KDevelop/Visual Studio dominate the market).
 So why not concentrate on fixing the spec and fixing compiler bugs
 instead of building a modest IDE support no one will use?

Any editor that is less responsive than notepad is useless to me, and I'm far from alone on that. Thus, we don't go anywhere near Eclipse, VS.NET, or anything along those lines (bunch of bloated garbage...and probably designed to get developers to buy fancier hardware and thus end up develop apps that require their users to buy fancier hardware).

Fine, if you are happy with your productivity. For me it was a natural choice. I started with notepad like editors, then moved to "programmer's editors" like crimson editor and jedit, soon discovered vim and emacs, and finally have settled down on Eclipse, Netbeans, Visual Studio, and IntelliJ IDEA.

 The productivity boost is enormous.

 Another killer
 feature is the "intellisense" stuff. Having the ability to see a)
 inferred type b) integrated html rendered javadoc c) type correct class
 members etc. saves me hours of work time per day. YMMV

I've used all that stuff before. I had to use Eclipse back when I was doing a little Java, and I did used VS.NET for C# in the early days (back then, VS.NET had most of those nice features, but wasn't nearly as bloated and sluggigh as it is today). So I'm very familiar with all of that stuff. In fact, I love all of it. But with things like Programmer's Notepad 2, I can actually get into a "flow" (which sluggishness instantly breaks) and I end up far *more* productive (as long as I'm not using some POS language like Java, see below).
 "Practical" languages
 have lots of boiler-plate, and I can easily generate hundreds of lines of
 code with a couple of key combinations or mouse clicks.

I disagree very much. For a puritanical anal-retentive language like Java, you *have* to have all that fancy stuff just to make the language even usable. But with a practical language like D, I have mixins, and I've gotten pretty good with regex find and replace, which obviously isn't as good, but it's good enough when dealing with any language that's at least somewhat sensible. With practical languages I never need to generate hundreds of lines of code. If I ever actually needed to do so (and in a way that an IDE could actually help with), I'd take that as a very big red flag that I was using an incredibly shitty language in the first place (like Java). Also, Eclipse, even with descent, is still very Java-centric, particularly wrt project/target/workspace management, and that gets in the way. And VS just doesn't have any D stuff available at all and takes a lot of work, a lot of bad documentation, and IIRC, a paid version of VS, to add or use any support at all for a new langauge. PN2 has D syntax highlighting built-in, which already puts it well ahead of VS for D.
Oct 12 2009
parent reply Walter Bright <newshound1 digitalmars.com> writes:
Nick Sabalausky wrote:
 "language_fan" <foo bar.com.invalid> wrote in message 
 "Practical" languages
 have lots of boiler-plate, and I can easily generate hundreds of lines of
 code with a couple of key combinations or mouse clicks.

I disagree very much. For a puritanical anal-retentive language like Java, you *have* to have all that fancy stuff just to make the language even usable. But with a practical language like D, I have mixins, and I've gotten pretty good with regex find and replace, which obviously isn't as good, but it's good enough when dealing with any language that's at least somewhat sensible. With practical languages I never need to generate hundreds of lines of code. If I ever actually needed to do so (and in a way that an IDE could actually help with), I'd take that as a very big red flag that I was using an incredibly shitty language in the first place (like Java).

I think Nick has a point. Java lacks template mixins, and so inserting hundreds of lines of code from an IDE "template" is normal. But with D, doing such would be abnormal.
Oct 12 2009
parent "Nick Sabalausky" <a a.a> writes:
"Walter Bright" <newshound1 digitalmars.com> wrote in message 
news:hb08gf$2hvq$1 digitalmars.com...
 Nick Sabalausky wrote:
 "language_fan" <foo bar.com.invalid> wrote in message
 "Practical" languages
 have lots of boiler-plate, and I can easily generate hundreds of lines 
 of
 code with a couple of key combinations or mouse clicks.

I disagree very much. For a puritanical anal-retentive language like Java, you *have* to have all that fancy stuff just to make the language even usable. But with a practical language like D, I have mixins, and I've gotten pretty good with regex find and replace, which obviously isn't as good, but it's good enough when dealing with any language that's at least somewhat sensible. With practical languages I never need to generate hundreds of lines of code. If I ever actually needed to do so (and in a way that an IDE could actually help with), I'd take that as a very big red flag that I was using an incredibly shitty language in the first place (like Java).

I think Nick has a point. Java lacks template mixins, and so inserting hundreds of lines of code from an IDE "template" is normal. But with D, doing such would be abnormal.

And not only that, but D supports higher-level and non-OOP constructs far better than Java, and far less verbosely, so you don't always even need to resort to mixins. A lot of the time you can just simply use better features. Like delegate literals instead of functors.
Oct 12 2009
prev sibling next sibling parent language_fan <foo bar.com.invalid> writes:
Tue, 13 Oct 2009 10:33:54 +0200, Ary Borenszweig thusly wrote:

 language_fan wrote:
  > "Practical" languages
 have lots of boiler-plate, and I can easily generate hundreds of lines
 of code with a couple of key combinations or mouse clicks.

Can you give some examples? I can only think of some that generate some lines of code, not hundreds.

For instance simple things like setters and getters for an aggregate class easily generate tens of lines of code (well, not only code lines, but also other kinds of editable lines). Like lutger said, all kinds of transformations also come in mind in this context. There could be even ORM mapping utilities which generate all the code for accessing the database structures.
Oct 13 2009
prev sibling parent language_fan <foo bar.com.invalid> writes:
Sun, 11 Oct 2009 10:48:30 +0000, language_fan thusly wrote:

 Well since there is already a project working on an Eclipse plugin, I
 see little use for other IDEs at the moment. The D community is rather
 small and only a small amount of people are capable of developing and
 willing to donate their free time on free IDE development (commercial
 IDEs have small potential now that
 Netbeans/Eclipse/IntelliJ/KDevelop/Visual Studio dominate the market).

BTW totally off-topic, but I just found out that IntelliJ IDEA has been jumped on the open source wagon. This probably makes it a bit more challenging to make money on the commercial IDE market.
Oct 15 2009
prev sibling next sibling parent Christopher Wright <dhasenan gmail.com> writes:
Walter Bright wrote:
 In my discussions with companies about adopting D, the major barrier 
 that comes up over and over isn't Tango vs Phobos, dmd being GPL, 
 debugger support, libraries, bugs, etc., although those are important.
 
 It's the IDE.
 
 They say that the productivity gains of D's improvements are 
 overbalanced by the loss of productivity by moving away from an IDE. And 
 what is it about an IDE that is so productive? Intellisense (Microsoft's 
 word for autocompletion).
 
 So, while I'm not going to be writing an IDE, I figure that dmd can 
 help. dmd already puts out .doc and .di files. How about putting out an 
 xml file giving all the information needed for an IDE to implement 
 autocompletion? There'd be one .xml file generated per .d source file.
 
 The nice thing about an xml file is while D is relatively easy to parse, 
 xml is trivial. Furthermore, an xml format would be fairly robust in the 
 face of changes to D syntax.
 
 What do you think?

The huge things are: - code navigation (go to definition / find usages) - reformatting - refactoring - autocompletion Code navigation alone is a huge help, and with reliable autocompletion would be sufficient for me to switch from vim. What you are suggesting would make both of those easier, though the IDE might need to duplicate D's symbol lookup. I'm not sure whether what you are talking about will help at all with reformatting or refactoring, and I really have no idea what would be required for this.
Oct 11 2009
prev sibling next sibling parent reply Ary Borenszweig <ary esperanto.org.ar> writes:
Walter Bright wrote:
 In my discussions with companies about adopting D, the major barrier 
 that comes up over and over isn't Tango vs Phobos, dmd being GPL, 
 debugger support, libraries, bugs, etc., although those are important.
 
 It's the IDE.
 
 So, while I'm not going to be writing an IDE, I figure that dmd can 
 help. dmd already puts out .doc and .di files. How about putting out an 
 xml file giving all the information needed for an IDE to implement 
 autocompletion? There'd be one .xml file generated per .d source file.
 
 What do you think?

What I think is that even with an xml representing the parse tree (maybe with some semantic stuff resolved) it'll be still incomplete for a real IDE (the kind of thing users expect from an IDE). You can see this video, for example: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KQbTT605ags So you have: --- module one; class Foo(T) { static if (is(T == class)) { T property; } else { T someMethod() { return T.init; } } mixin(guessWhat!(T)()); } --- You want to define an xml for that module that'll help IDEs. Can you think what it'll look like? Now the user writes in another module: class Bar { } void x() { auto foo = new Foo!(Bar)(); foo. <-- what does the IDE do here? } Now, the correct thing for the IDE to do is to suggest the field "Bar property". How can the IDE do that just with an xml? It can't. It need to perform some kind of semantic anlysis to Foo's argument to see if it's a class, match the static if in the template, replace template parameters, etc. It also needs to evaluate the string mixin. Of course you could say "Bah, just show all the declarations inside the template in the autocomplete", but that's wrong. That'll lead to files that don't compile. You could ommit supporting autocompletion or other nice features, but that's exactly the big features of D. If you don't support that then it's like using Java or C# from within the IDE: you could use the advanced features but the IDE won't help you. And in your discussions with companies adopting D, I'm sure they were talking about great IDEs like JDT Eclipse or Visual Studio, not just some tool that helps you a little but not anymore when things get interesting. Oh, and you need to have some kind of semantic analysis to know the type of "auto foo". Again, maybe the IDE can be dummy and see "auto foo = new Foo!(Bar)" and say "ok, foo's type is Foo!(Bar)", but then you have: auto b = foo.property; b. <-- and here? // remember "property" is templated and depends on static analysis // or the IDE could need to resolve alias this or other things So... my opinion (like some others, I see) is to either ask things to the compiler directly (but here the compiler lacks some info, like exact source range positions), or to have a compiler (not a full-blown one, just the front-end) built into the IDE, and that's what Descent is. Unfortunately Descent is sometimes slow, sometimes buggy, but that's normal: just a few people develop and maintain it (so I can see a similarity with dmd here, where each day I see two or three new bugs reported). If more people were into it, more unit tests were written into it and, most of all, more people would use it, it'll get better. Another problem that people see in Descent (maybe also JDT Eclipse and Visual Studio0 is that it's huge, it consumes a lot of memory and they don't want to open a huge tool just to hack some lines. My answer is: memory performance can be improved (but not a lot), but since an IDE is a huge tool it requires a lof from the computer. And an IDE is not meant to be used to hack some lines, it's meant to help you write big project, huge projects without getting lost in the amount of code. So my bet would be to start supporting an existing IDE that integrates a compiler into it. Updating it is easy: just port the diffs between DMD versions. It's a huge job for one or two people, but if a lot of people were involved it's not that much. Of course I'd recommend you to try Descent since I'm one of it's creators and I do believe it can get pretty good. :-)
Oct 11 2009
next sibling parent reply Yigal Chripun <yigal100 gmail.com> writes:
On 11/10/2009 15:23, Ary Borenszweig wrote:
 Walter Bright wrote:
 In my discussions with companies about adopting D, the major barrier
 that comes up over and over isn't Tango vs Phobos, dmd being GPL,
 debugger support, libraries, bugs, etc., although those are important.

 It's the IDE.

 So, while I'm not going to be writing an IDE, I figure that dmd can
 help. dmd already puts out .doc and .di files. How about putting out
 an xml file giving all the information needed for an IDE to implement
 autocompletion? There'd be one .xml file generated per .d source file.

 What do you think?

What I think is that even with an xml representing the parse tree (maybe with some semantic stuff resolved) it'll be still incomplete for a real IDE (the kind of thing users expect from an IDE). You can see this video, for example: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KQbTT605ags So you have: --- module one; class Foo(T) { static if (is(T == class)) { T property; } else { T someMethod() { return T.init; } } mixin(guessWhat!(T)()); } --- You want to define an xml for that module that'll help IDEs. Can you think what it'll look like? Now the user writes in another module: class Bar { } void x() { auto foo = new Foo!(Bar)(); foo. <-- what does the IDE do here? } Now, the correct thing for the IDE to do is to suggest the field "Bar property". How can the IDE do that just with an xml? It can't. It need to perform some kind of semantic anlysis to Foo's argument to see if it's a class, match the static if in the template, replace template parameters, etc. It also needs to evaluate the string mixin. Of course you could say "Bah, just show all the declarations inside the template in the autocomplete", but that's wrong. That'll lead to files that don't compile. You could ommit supporting autocompletion or other nice features, but that's exactly the big features of D. If you don't support that then it's like using Java or C# from within the IDE: you could use the advanced features but the IDE won't help you. And in your discussions with companies adopting D, I'm sure they were talking about great IDEs like JDT Eclipse or Visual Studio, not just some tool that helps you a little but not anymore when things get interesting. Oh, and you need to have some kind of semantic analysis to know the type of "auto foo". Again, maybe the IDE can be dummy and see "auto foo = new Foo!(Bar)" and say "ok, foo's type is Foo!(Bar)", but then you have: auto b = foo.property; b. <-- and here? // remember "property" is templated and depends on static analysis // or the IDE could need to resolve alias this or other things So... my opinion (like some others, I see) is to either ask things to the compiler directly (but here the compiler lacks some info, like exact source range positions), or to have a compiler (not a full-blown one, just the front-end) built into the IDE, and that's what Descent is. Unfortunately Descent is sometimes slow, sometimes buggy, but that's normal: just a few people develop and maintain it (so I can see a similarity with dmd here, where each day I see two or three new bugs reported). If more people were into it, more unit tests were written into it and, most of all, more people would use it, it'll get better. Another problem that people see in Descent (maybe also JDT Eclipse and Visual Studio0 is that it's huge, it consumes a lot of memory and they don't want to open a huge tool just to hack some lines. My answer is: memory performance can be improved (but not a lot), but since an IDE is a huge tool it requires a lof from the computer. And an IDE is not meant to be used to hack some lines, it's meant to help you write big project, huge projects without getting lost in the amount of code. So my bet would be to start supporting an existing IDE that integrates a compiler into it. Updating it is easy: just port the diffs between DMD versions. It's a huge job for one or two people, but if a lot of people were involved it's not that much. Of course I'd recommend you to try Descent since I'm one of it's creators and I do believe it can get pretty good. :-)

well put. btw, given that we have a port of SWT for D, how hard would it be to create our own native D version of eclipse?
Oct 11 2009
parent reply Jacob Carlborg <doob me.com> writes:
On 10/11/09 20:58, Yigal Chripun wrote:
 On 11/10/2009 15:23, Ary Borenszweig wrote:
 Walter Bright wrote:
 In my discussions with companies about adopting D, the major barrier
 that comes up over and over isn't Tango vs Phobos, dmd being GPL,
 debugger support, libraries, bugs, etc., although those are important.

 It's the IDE.

 So, while I'm not going to be writing an IDE, I figure that dmd can
 help. dmd already puts out .doc and .di files. How about putting out
 an xml file giving all the information needed for an IDE to implement
 autocompletion? There'd be one .xml file generated per .d source file.

 What do you think?

What I think is that even with an xml representing the parse tree (maybe with some semantic stuff resolved) it'll be still incomplete for a real IDE (the kind of thing users expect from an IDE). You can see this video, for example: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KQbTT605ags So you have: --- module one; class Foo(T) { static if (is(T == class)) { T property; } else { T someMethod() { return T.init; } } mixin(guessWhat!(T)()); } --- You want to define an xml for that module that'll help IDEs. Can you think what it'll look like? Now the user writes in another module: class Bar { } void x() { auto foo = new Foo!(Bar)(); foo. <-- what does the IDE do here? } Now, the correct thing for the IDE to do is to suggest the field "Bar property". How can the IDE do that just with an xml? It can't. It need to perform some kind of semantic anlysis to Foo's argument to see if it's a class, match the static if in the template, replace template parameters, etc. It also needs to evaluate the string mixin. Of course you could say "Bah, just show all the declarations inside the template in the autocomplete", but that's wrong. That'll lead to files that don't compile. You could ommit supporting autocompletion or other nice features, but that's exactly the big features of D. If you don't support that then it's like using Java or C# from within the IDE: you could use the advanced features but the IDE won't help you. And in your discussions with companies adopting D, I'm sure they were talking about great IDEs like JDT Eclipse or Visual Studio, not just some tool that helps you a little but not anymore when things get interesting. Oh, and you need to have some kind of semantic analysis to know the type of "auto foo". Again, maybe the IDE can be dummy and see "auto foo = new Foo!(Bar)" and say "ok, foo's type is Foo!(Bar)", but then you have: auto b = foo.property; b. <-- and here? // remember "property" is templated and depends on static analysis // or the IDE could need to resolve alias this or other things So... my opinion (like some others, I see) is to either ask things to the compiler directly (but here the compiler lacks some info, like exact source range positions), or to have a compiler (not a full-blown one, just the front-end) built into the IDE, and that's what Descent is. Unfortunately Descent is sometimes slow, sometimes buggy, but that's normal: just a few people develop and maintain it (so I can see a similarity with dmd here, where each day I see two or three new bugs reported). If more people were into it, more unit tests were written into it and, most of all, more people would use it, it'll get better. Another problem that people see in Descent (maybe also JDT Eclipse and Visual Studio0 is that it's huge, it consumes a lot of memory and they don't want to open a huge tool just to hack some lines. My answer is: memory performance can be improved (but not a lot), but since an IDE is a huge tool it requires a lof from the computer. And an IDE is not meant to be used to hack some lines, it's meant to help you write big project, huge projects without getting lost in the amount of code. So my bet would be to start supporting an existing IDE that integrates a compiler into it. Updating it is easy: just port the diffs between DMD versions. It's a huge job for one or two people, but if a lot of people were involved it's not that much. Of course I'd recommend you to try Descent since I'm one of it's creators and I do believe it can get pretty good. :-)

well put. btw, given that we have a port of SWT for D, how hard would it be to create our own native D version of eclipse?

Frank Benoit (who started DWT, the tango version) was think about this. Quite a big part is already ported, SWT, JFace, Forms, OSGI and so on, see: http://hg.dsource.org/projects/dwt2/file/88652073d1c2/ . I think one of the biggest challenge to port is class loading, dynamic libraries could work for this but we all know how well they work on windows.
Oct 11 2009
parent Frank Benoit <keinfarbton googlemail.com> writes:
Jacob Carlborg schrieb:
 On 10/11/09 20:58, Yigal Chripun wrote:
 On 11/10/2009 15:23, Ary Borenszweig wrote:
 Walter Bright wrote:
 In my discussions with companies about adopting D, the major barrier
 that comes up over and over isn't Tango vs Phobos, dmd being GPL,
 debugger support, libraries, bugs, etc., although those are important.

 It's the IDE.

 So, while I'm not going to be writing an IDE, I figure that dmd can
 help. dmd already puts out .doc and .di files. How about putting out
 an xml file giving all the information needed for an IDE to implement
 autocompletion? There'd be one .xml file generated per .d source file.

 What do you think?

What I think is that even with an xml representing the parse tree (maybe with some semantic stuff resolved) it'll be still incomplete for a real IDE (the kind of thing users expect from an IDE). You can see this video, for example: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KQbTT605ags So you have: --- module one; class Foo(T) { static if (is(T == class)) { T property; } else { T someMethod() { return T.init; } } mixin(guessWhat!(T)()); } --- You want to define an xml for that module that'll help IDEs. Can you think what it'll look like? Now the user writes in another module: class Bar { } void x() { auto foo = new Foo!(Bar)(); foo. <-- what does the IDE do here? } Now, the correct thing for the IDE to do is to suggest the field "Bar property". How can the IDE do that just with an xml? It can't. It need to perform some kind of semantic anlysis to Foo's argument to see if it's a class, match the static if in the template, replace template parameters, etc. It also needs to evaluate the string mixin. Of course you could say "Bah, just show all the declarations inside the template in the autocomplete", but that's wrong. That'll lead to files that don't compile. You could ommit supporting autocompletion or other nice features, but that's exactly the big features of D. If you don't support that then it's like using Java or C# from within the IDE: you could use the advanced features but the IDE won't help you. And in your discussions with companies adopting D, I'm sure they were talking about great IDEs like JDT Eclipse or Visual Studio, not just some tool that helps you a little but not anymore when things get interesting. Oh, and you need to have some kind of semantic analysis to know the type of "auto foo". Again, maybe the IDE can be dummy and see "auto foo = new Foo!(Bar)" and say "ok, foo's type is Foo!(Bar)", but then you have: auto b = foo.property; b. <-- and here? // remember "property" is templated and depends on static analysis // or the IDE could need to resolve alias this or other things So... my opinion (like some others, I see) is to either ask things to the compiler directly (but here the compiler lacks some info, like exact source range positions), or to have a compiler (not a full-blown one, just the front-end) built into the IDE, and that's what Descent is. Unfortunately Descent is sometimes slow, sometimes buggy, but that's normal: just a few people develop and maintain it (so I can see a similarity with dmd here, where each day I see two or three new bugs reported). If more people were into it, more unit tests were written into it and, most of all, more people would use it, it'll get better. Another problem that people see in Descent (maybe also JDT Eclipse and Visual Studio0 is that it's huge, it consumes a lot of memory and they don't want to open a huge tool just to hack some lines. My answer is: memory performance can be improved (but not a lot), but since an IDE is a huge tool it requires a lof from the computer. And an IDE is not meant to be used to hack some lines, it's meant to help you write big project, huge projects without getting lost in the amount of code. So my bet would be to start supporting an existing IDE that integrates a compiler into it. Updating it is easy: just port the diffs between DMD versions. It's a huge job for one or two people, but if a lot of people were involved it's not that much. Of course I'd recommend you to try Descent since I'm one of it's creators and I do believe it can get pretty good. :-)

well put. btw, given that we have a port of SWT for D, how hard would it be to create our own native D version of eclipse?

Frank Benoit (who started DWT, the tango version) was think about this. Quite a big part is already ported, SWT, JFace, Forms, OSGI and so on, see: http://hg.dsource.org/projects/dwt2/file/88652073d1c2/ .

Sorry, OSGi is just dummy, to make other stuff compile.
Oct 12 2009
prev sibling parent reply Jacob Carlborg <doob me.com> writes:
On 10/11/09 15:23, Ary Borenszweig wrote:
 Walter Bright wrote:
 In my discussions with companies about adopting D, the major barrier
 that comes up over and over isn't Tango vs Phobos, dmd being GPL,
 debugger support, libraries, bugs, etc., although those are important.

 It's the IDE.

 So, while I'm not going to be writing an IDE, I figure that dmd can
 help. dmd already puts out .doc and .di files. How about putting out
 an xml file giving all the information needed for an IDE to implement
 autocompletion? There'd be one .xml file generated per .d source file.

 What do you think?

What I think is that even with an xml representing the parse tree (maybe with some semantic stuff resolved) it'll be still incomplete for a real IDE (the kind of thing users expect from an IDE). You can see this video, for example: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KQbTT605ags So you have: --- module one; class Foo(T) { static if (is(T == class)) { T property; } else { T someMethod() { return T.init; } } mixin(guessWhat!(T)()); } --- You want to define an xml for that module that'll help IDEs. Can you think what it'll look like? Now the user writes in another module: class Bar { } void x() { auto foo = new Foo!(Bar)(); foo. <-- what does the IDE do here? } Now, the correct thing for the IDE to do is to suggest the field "Bar property". How can the IDE do that just with an xml? It can't. It need to perform some kind of semantic anlysis to Foo's argument to see if it's a class, match the static if in the template, replace template parameters, etc. It also needs to evaluate the string mixin. Of course you could say "Bah, just show all the declarations inside the template in the autocomplete", but that's wrong. That'll lead to files that don't compile. You could ommit supporting autocompletion or other nice features, but that's exactly the big features of D. If you don't support that then it's like using Java or C# from within the IDE: you could use the advanced features but the IDE won't help you. And in your discussions with companies adopting D, I'm sure they were talking about great IDEs like JDT Eclipse or Visual Studio, not just some tool that helps you a little but not anymore when things get interesting. Oh, and you need to have some kind of semantic analysis to know the type of "auto foo". Again, maybe the IDE can be dummy and see "auto foo = new Foo!(Bar)" and say "ok, foo's type is Foo!(Bar)", but then you have: auto b = foo.property; b. <-- and here? // remember "property" is templated and depends on static analysis // or the IDE could need to resolve alias this or other things So... my opinion (like some others, I see) is to either ask things to the compiler directly (but here the compiler lacks some info, like exact source range positions), or to have a compiler (not a full-blown one, just the front-end) built into the IDE, and that's what Descent is. Unfortunately Descent is sometimes slow, sometimes buggy, but that's normal: just a few people develop and maintain it (so I can see a similarity with dmd here, where each day I see two or three new bugs reported). If more people were into it, more unit tests were written into it and, most of all, more people would use it, it'll get better.

I use it almost at a daily base and it works great. I can't remember the last time it cashed.
 Another problem that people see in Descent (maybe also JDT Eclipse and
 Visual Studio0 is that it's huge, it consumes a lot of memory and they
 don't want to open a huge tool just to hack some lines. My answer is:
 memory performance can be improved (but not a lot), but since an IDE is
 a huge tool it requires a lof from the computer. And an IDE is not meant
 to be used to hack some lines, it's meant to help you write big project,
 huge projects without getting lost in the amount of code.

 So my bet would be to start supporting an existing IDE that integrates a
 compiler into it. Updating it is easy: just port the diffs between DMD
 versions. It's a huge job for one or two people, but if a lot of people
 were involved it's not that much. Of course I'd recommend you to try
 Descent since I'm one of it's creators and I do believe it can get
 pretty good. :-)

Oct 11 2009
parent Ary Borenszweig <ary esperanto.org.ar> writes:
Jacob Carlborg wrote:
 On 10/11/09 15:23, Ary Borenszweig wrote:
 Walter Bright wrote:
 In my discussions with companies about adopting D, the major barrier
 that comes up over and over isn't Tango vs Phobos, dmd being GPL,
 debugger support, libraries, bugs, etc., although those are important.

 It's the IDE.

 So, while I'm not going to be writing an IDE, I figure that dmd can
 help. dmd already puts out .doc and .di files. How about putting out
 an xml file giving all the information needed for an IDE to implement
 autocompletion? There'd be one .xml file generated per .d source file.

 What do you think?

So... my opinion (like some others, I see) is to either ask things to the compiler directly (but here the compiler lacks some info, like exact source range positions), or to have a compiler (not a full-blown one, just the front-end) built into the IDE, and that's what Descent is. Unfortunately Descent is sometimes slow, sometimes buggy, but that's normal: just a few people develop and maintain it (so I can see a similarity with dmd here, where each day I see two or three new bugs reported). If more people were into it, more unit tests were written into it and, most of all, more people would use it, it'll get better.

I use it almost at a daily base and it works great. I can't remember the last time it cashed.

Wow, that's good news! :)
Oct 11 2009
prev sibling next sibling parent reply "Denis Koroskin" <2korden gmail.com> writes:
On Sun, 11 Oct 2009 05:19:56 +0400, Walter Bright  
<newshound1 digitalmars.com> wrote:

 In my discussions with companies about adopting D, the major barrier  
 that comes up over and over isn't Tango vs Phobos, dmd being GPL,  
 debugger support, libraries, bugs, etc., although those are important.

 It's the IDE.

 They say that the productivity gains of D's improvements are  
 overbalanced by the loss of productivity by moving away from an IDE. And  
 what is it about an IDE that is so productive? Intellisense (Microsoft's  
 word for autocompletion).

 So, while I'm not going to be writing an IDE, I figure that dmd can  
 help. dmd already puts out .doc and .di files. How about putting out an  
 xml file giving all the information needed for an IDE to implement  
 autocompletion? There'd be one .xml file generated per .d source file.

 The nice thing about an xml file is while D is relatively easy to parse,  
 xml is trivial. Furthermore, an xml format would be fairly robust in the  
 face of changes to D syntax.

 What do you think?

I believe it won't work. It will always be slow and incomplete. Instead, I would make it easier to embed DMD into an IDE: separate DMDFE from DMDBE, fix memory leaks, remove all the static data (so that code would be re-intrable and it could work in different threads in parallel), move most of DMD code into a DLL so that an IDE could dynamically link with it and whatever it pleases with the source code. In fact, that's what I do right now. I'm writing my own D IDE in my spare time (in D, of course). I already made a lot of progress and now it's time to start implementing source code analysis. First thing I did is I made complete D bindings for C++ code. It worked out quite well but it was leaking so badly that I dropped it. Instead, I started porting DMD entirely to D (except the backend, of course), and I already got some great results. A few simple programs compile and produce byte-perfect binaries. It's still in its early stages and there is a lot of work to do, but it will be finished soon (hopefully). It could probably become a part of an official distribution, eventually. :) If anyone is interested and is willing to test and/or help, I will gladly share my code.
Oct 11 2009
next sibling parent reply Ellery Newcomer <ellery-newcomer utulsa.edu> writes:
Denis Koroskin wrote:
 On Sun, 11 Oct 2009 05:19:56 +0400, Walter Bright
 <newshound1 digitalmars.com> wrote:
 
 If anyone is interested and is willing to test and/or help, I will
 gladly share my code.

Oooo.. You should put that on dsource or somewhere. Hacking D sounds like a lot more fun than hacking C++. I wouldn't mind helping out on this one.
Oct 11 2009
next sibling parent reply Andrei Alexandrescu <SeeWebsiteForEmail erdani.org> writes:
Ellery Newcomer wrote:
 Denis Koroskin wrote:
 On Sun, 11 Oct 2009 05:19:56 +0400, Walter Bright
 <newshound1 digitalmars.com> wrote:

 If anyone is interested and is willing to test and/or help, I will
 gladly share my code.

Oooo.. You should put that on dsource or somewhere. Hacking D sounds like a lot more fun than hacking C++. I wouldn't mind helping out on this one.

Guys please use D2 :o). Andrei
Oct 11 2009
parent reply BLS <windevguy hotmail.de> writes:
On 11/10/2009 17:43, Denis Koroskin wrote:
 On Sun, 11 Oct 2009 19:10:42 +0400, Andrei Alexandrescu
 <SeeWebsiteForEmail erdani.org> wrote:

 Ellery Newcomer wrote:
 Denis Koroskin wrote:
 On Sun, 11 Oct 2009 05:19:56 +0400, Walter Bright
 <newshound1 digitalmars.com> wrote:

 If anyone is interested and is willing to test and/or help, I will
 gladly share my code.

like a lot more fun than hacking C++. I wouldn't mind helping out on this one.

Guys please use D2 :o). Andrei

I do, it's written entirely in D2 :)

Which GUI toolkit ?
Oct 11 2009
parent Yigal Chripun <yigal100 gmail.com> writes:
On 11/10/2009 18:29, Denis Koroskin wrote:
 On Sun, 11 Oct 2009 20:03:16 +0400, BLS <windevguy hotmail.de> wrote:

 On 11/10/2009 17:43, Denis Koroskin wrote:
 On Sun, 11 Oct 2009 19:10:42 +0400, Andrei Alexandrescu
 <SeeWebsiteForEmail erdani.org> wrote:

 Ellery Newcomer wrote:
 Denis Koroskin wrote:
 On Sun, 11 Oct 2009 05:19:56 +0400, Walter Bright
 <newshound1 digitalmars.com> wrote:

 If anyone is interested and is willing to test and/or help, I will
 gladly share my code.

like a lot more fun than hacking C++. I wouldn't mind helping out on this one.

Guys please use D2 :o). Andrei

I do, it's written entirely in D2 :)

Which GUI toolkit ?

I took the Eclipse way and wrote everything from scratch, including the GUI toolkit. It evolves out of needs of other projects. It's meant to be platform independent, but only Win32 backend is currently supported, although I started implementing a generic (windowless) one, but mostly to test out the design and look into implementing custom rendering and skinning support. I believe it won't take too long to port it to other platforms (GTK in first place), but there are always other things to do first...

sounds awesome. have you considered integrating other existing projects like Dil and dang?
Oct 11 2009
prev sibling next sibling parent Jeremie Pelletier <jeremiep gmail.com> writes:
language_fan wrote:
 Sun, 11 Oct 2009 09:39:32 -0500, Ellery Newcomer thusly wrote:
 
 Denis Koroskin wrote:
 On Sun, 11 Oct 2009 05:19:56 +0400, Walter Bright
 <newshound1 digitalmars.com> wrote:

 If anyone is interested and is willing to test and/or help, I will
 gladly share my code.

like a lot more fun than hacking C++. I wouldn't mind helping out on this one.

Wow, I am pretty sure I have already seen a D port of dmd on dsource. Was there a good reason to start yet another port of it?

Maybe learning, porting a library or application from a language to another is a great way to learn about it inside out. I used to do that a lot too.
Oct 12 2009
prev sibling parent reply Walter Bright <newshound1 digitalmars.com> writes:
Denis Koroskin wrote:
 I just believe rewriting it from scratch will be plain faster. I can 
 also test the code much easier - if it produces exact same binary then 
 it works correct.

The dmd front end is also written in a "D-ish" style which should make translation to D easier.
Oct 12 2009
parent reply grauzone <none example.net> writes:
Walter Bright wrote:
 Denis Koroskin wrote:
 I just believe rewriting it from scratch will be plain faster. I can 
 also test the code much easier - if it produces exact same binary then 
 it works correct.

The dmd front end is also written in a "D-ish" style which should make translation to D easier.

But some stuff doesn't quite match: for example, Expression is declared in expression.h. But not all methods are implemented in expression.c. There's at least the interpret() method, which is in interpret.c. How would you translate this into D? Just mash everything into a single .d source file?
Oct 12 2009
parent Walter Bright <newshound1 digitalmars.com> writes:
grauzone wrote:
 But some stuff doesn't quite match: for example, Expression is declared 
 in expression.h. But not all methods are implemented in expression.c. 
 There's at least the interpret() method, which is in interpret.c.
 
 How would you translate this into D? Just mash everything into a single 
 .d source file?

Oh, I agree that the files would have to be organized differently. One giant file is a little extreme, though <g>. Probably one module per class would be better.
Oct 12 2009
prev sibling next sibling parent "Denis Koroskin" <2korden gmail.com> writes:
On Sun, 11 Oct 2009 19:10:42 +0400, Andrei Alexandrescu  
<SeeWebsiteForEmail erdani.org> wrote:

 Ellery Newcomer wrote:
 Denis Koroskin wrote:
 On Sun, 11 Oct 2009 05:19:56 +0400, Walter Bright
 <newshound1 digitalmars.com> wrote:

 If anyone is interested and is willing to test and/or help, I will
 gladly share my code.

like a lot more fun than hacking C++. I wouldn't mind helping out on this one.

Guys please use D2 :o). Andrei

I do, it's written entirely in D2 :)
Oct 11 2009
prev sibling next sibling parent "Denis Koroskin" <2korden gmail.com> writes:
On Sun, 11 Oct 2009 20:03:16 +0400, BLS <windevguy hotmail.de> wrote:

 On 11/10/2009 17:43, Denis Koroskin wrote:
 On Sun, 11 Oct 2009 19:10:42 +0400, Andrei Alexandrescu
 <SeeWebsiteForEmail erdani.org> wrote:

 Ellery Newcomer wrote:
 Denis Koroskin wrote:
 On Sun, 11 Oct 2009 05:19:56 +0400, Walter Bright
 <newshound1 digitalmars.com> wrote:

 If anyone is interested and is willing to test and/or help, I will
 gladly share my code.

like a lot more fun than hacking C++. I wouldn't mind helping out on this one.

Guys please use D2 :o). Andrei

I do, it's written entirely in D2 :)

Which GUI toolkit ?

I took the Eclipse way and wrote everything from scratch, including the GUI toolkit. It evolves out of needs of other projects. It's meant to be platform independent, but only Win32 backend is currently supported, although I started implementing a generic (windowless) one, but mostly to test out the design and look into implementing custom rendering and skinning support. I believe it won't take too long to port it to other platforms (GTK in first place), but there are always other things to do first...
Oct 11 2009
prev sibling next sibling parent reply digited <digited yandex.ru> writes:
Denis Koroskin :

 If anyone is interested and is willing to test and/or help, I will
 gladly share my code.

You can write a note on dprogramming ru about the epic thing you're working on, i'm sure we'll help to test at least.
Oct 11 2009
parent Eldar Insafutdinov <e.insafutdinov gmail.com> writes:
digited Wrote:

 Denis Koroskin :
 
 If anyone is interested and is willing to test and/or help, I will
 gladly share my code.

You can write a note on dprogramming ru about the epic thing you're working on, i'm sure we'll help to test at least.

I'm all for it.
Oct 11 2009
prev sibling next sibling parent reply Walter Bright <newshound1 digitalmars.com> writes:
Denis Koroskin wrote:
 In fact, that's what I do right now.

I think that's great. But it requires a lot of work (as of course you know).
Oct 11 2009
parent reply Ary Borenszweig <ary esperanto.org.ar> writes:
Walter Bright wrote:
 Denis Koroskin wrote:
 In fact, that's what I do right now.

I think that's great. But it requires a lot of work (as of course you know).

Good things require a lot of work. :)
Oct 11 2009
parent reply Walter Bright <newshound1 digitalmars.com> writes:
Ary Borenszweig wrote:
 Walter Bright wrote:
 Denis Koroskin wrote:
 In fact, that's what I do right now.

I think that's great. But it requires a lot of work (as of course you know).

Good things require a lot of work. :)

Of course. But getting something done and available in a short amount of time is also good! For example, some people say to me "why should I use D, when C++0x solves my issues with C++?" And I point out "how many more years are you willing to wait for C++0x, when D is here now?" [Setting aside for the moment the issue of whether C++0x really is better than D or not!] The point is, good enough now gets us further down the road of getting a user base large enough to justify the effort for a more comprehensive solution. For example, if I have many miles to commute to work, the best choice is a car. But if I can't afford a car, or am too young to drive, a bike at least gets me there. Before I was 16 and could drive, a bike was very liberating for me, I rode it everywhere.
Oct 11 2009
next sibling parent Jacob Carlborg <doob me.com> writes:
On 10/11/09 21:38, Walter Bright wrote:
 Ary Borenszweig wrote:
 Walter Bright wrote:
 Denis Koroskin wrote:
 In fact, that's what I do right now.

I think that's great. But it requires a lot of work (as of course you know).

Good things require a lot of work. :)

Of course. But getting something done and available in a short amount of time is also good! For example, some people say to me "why should I use D, when C++0x solves my issues with C++?" And I point out "how many more years are you willing to wait for C++0x, when D is here now?" [Setting aside for the moment the issue of whether C++0x really is better than D or not!] The point is, good enough now gets us further down the road of getting a user base large enough to justify the effort for a more comprehensive solution.

I think descent is really good now.
 For example, if I have many miles to commute to work, the best choice is
 a car. But if I can't afford a car, or am too young to drive, a bike at
 least gets me there. Before I was 16 and could drive, a bike was very
 liberating for me, I rode it everywhere.

Oct 11 2009
prev sibling parent reply "Nick Sabalausky" <a a.a> writes:
"Walter Bright" <newshound1 digitalmars.com> wrote in message 
news:hatc8c$277u$1 digitalmars.com...
 Ary Borenszweig wrote:
 Walter Bright wrote:
 Denis Koroskin wrote:
 In fact, that's what I do right now.

I think that's great. But it requires a lot of work (as of course you know).

Good things require a lot of work. :)

Of course. But getting something done and available in a short amount of time is also good! For example, some people say to me "why should I use D, when C++0x solves my issues with C++?" And I point out "how many more years are you willing to wait for C++0x, when D is here now?" [Setting aside for the moment the issue of whether C++0x really is better than D or not!] The point is, good enough now gets us further down the road of getting a user base large enough to justify the effort for a more comprehensive solution. For example, if I have many miles to commute to work, the best choice is a car. But if I can't afford a car, or am too young to drive, a bike at least gets me there. Before I was 16 and could drive, a bike was very liberating for me, I rode it everywhere.

It's a good point, but, if I'm reading this group right, it sounds like it might not be quite as useful as you're expecting it would be.
Oct 11 2009
parent Walter Bright <newshound1 digitalmars.com> writes:
Nick Sabalausky wrote:
 It's a good point, but, if I'm reading this group right, it sounds like it 
 might not be quite as useful as you're expecting it would be.

Yes, I can see that.
Oct 11 2009
prev sibling next sibling parent Jacob Carlborg <doob me.com> writes:
On 10/11/09 16:32, Denis Koroskin wrote:
 On Sun, 11 Oct 2009 05:19:56 +0400, Walter Bright
 <newshound1 digitalmars.com> wrote:

 In my discussions with companies about adopting D, the major barrier
 that comes up over and over isn't Tango vs Phobos, dmd being GPL,
 debugger support, libraries, bugs, etc., although those are important.

 It's the IDE.

 They say that the productivity gains of D's improvements are
 overbalanced by the loss of productivity by moving away from an IDE.
 And what is it about an IDE that is so productive? Intellisense
 (Microsoft's word for autocompletion).

 So, while I'm not going to be writing an IDE, I figure that dmd can
 help. dmd already puts out .doc and .di files. How about putting out
 an xml file giving all the information needed for an IDE to implement
 autocompletion? There'd be one .xml file generated per .d source file.

 The nice thing about an xml file is while D is relatively easy to
 parse, xml is trivial. Furthermore, an xml format would be fairly
 robust in the face of changes to D syntax.

 What do you think?

I believe it won't work. It will always be slow and incomplete. Instead, I would make it easier to embed DMD into an IDE: separate DMDFE from DMDBE, fix memory leaks, remove all the static data (so that code would be re-intrable and it could work in different threads in parallel), move most of DMD code into a DLL so that an IDE could dynamically link with it and whatever it pleases with the source code. In fact, that's what I do right now. I'm writing my own D IDE in my spare time (in D, of course). I already made a lot of progress and now it's time to start implementing source code analysis. First thing I did is I made complete D bindings for C++ code. It worked out quite well but it was leaking so badly that I dropped it. Instead, I started porting DMD entirely to D (except the backend, of course), and I already got some great results. A few simple programs compile and produce byte-perfect binaries. It's still in its early stages and there is a lot of work to do, but it will be finished soon (hopefully). It could probably become a part of an official distribution, eventually. :) If anyone is interested and is willing to test and/or help, I will gladly share my code.

Sounds interesting, put it online somewhere.
Oct 11 2009
prev sibling next sibling parent language_fan <foo bar.com.invalid> writes:
Sun, 11 Oct 2009 09:39:32 -0500, Ellery Newcomer thusly wrote:

 Denis Koroskin wrote:
 On Sun, 11 Oct 2009 05:19:56 +0400, Walter Bright
 <newshound1 digitalmars.com> wrote:
 
 If anyone is interested and is willing to test and/or help, I will
 gladly share my code.

Oooo.. You should put that on dsource or somewhere. Hacking D sounds like a lot more fun than hacking C++. I wouldn't mind helping out on this one.

Wow, I am pretty sure I have already seen a D port of dmd on dsource. Was there a good reason to start yet another port of it?
Oct 12 2009
prev sibling next sibling parent "Phil Deets" <pjdeets2 gmail.com> writes:
On Sun, 11 Oct 2009 09:32:32 -0500, Denis Koroskin <2korden gmail.com>  
wrote:

 On Sun, 11 Oct 2009 05:19:56 +0400, Walter Bright  
 <newshound1 digitalmars.com> wrote:

 In my discussions with companies about adopting D, the major barrier  
 that comes up over and over isn't Tango vs Phobos, dmd being GPL,  
 debugger support, libraries, bugs, etc., although those are important.

 It's the IDE.

 They say that the productivity gains of D's improvements are  
 overbalanced by the loss of productivity by moving away from an IDE.  
 And what is it about an IDE that is so productive? Intellisense  
 (Microsoft's word for autocompletion).

 So, while I'm not going to be writing an IDE, I figure that dmd can  
 help. dmd already puts out .doc and .di files. How about putting out an  
 xml file giving all the information needed for an IDE to implement  
 autocompletion? There'd be one .xml file generated per .d source file.

 The nice thing about an xml file is while D is relatively easy to  
 parse, xml is trivial. Furthermore, an xml format would be fairly  
 robust in the face of changes to D syntax.

 What do you think?

I believe it won't work. It will always be slow and incomplete. Instead, I would make it easier to embed DMD into an IDE: separate DMDFE from DMDBE, fix memory leaks, remove all the static data (so that code would be re-intrable and it could work in different threads in parallel), move most of DMD code into a DLL so that an IDE could dynamically link with it and whatever it pleases with the source code. In fact, that's what I do right now. I'm writing my own D IDE in my spare time (in D, of course). I already made a lot of progress and now it's time to start implementing source code analysis. First thing I did is I made complete D bindings for C++ code. It worked out quite well but it was leaking so badly that I dropped it. Instead, I started porting DMD entirely to D (except the backend, of course), and I already got some great results. A few simple programs compile and produce byte-perfect binaries. It's still in its early stages and there is a lot of work to do, but it will be finished soon (hopefully). It could probably become a part of an official distribution, eventually. :) If anyone is interested and is willing to test and/or help, I will gladly share my code.

I would like it if this went open so I could examine it and possibly contribute to it. I have wanted to do something like this, but all I have started so far is a GUI toolkit. I am new to D so I have not spent much time on it yet. It would be nice to be able to work on something more developed. -- Using Opera's revolutionary e-mail client: http://www.opera.com/mail/
Oct 12 2009
prev sibling next sibling parent "Denis Koroskin" <2korden gmail.com> writes:
On Mon, 12 Oct 2009 12:58:56 +0400, language_fan <foo bar.com.invalid>  
wrote:

 Sun, 11 Oct 2009 09:39:32 -0500, Ellery Newcomer thusly wrote:

 Denis Koroskin wrote:
 On Sun, 11 Oct 2009 05:19:56 +0400, Walter Bright
 <newshound1 digitalmars.com> wrote:

 If anyone is interested and is willing to test and/or help, I will
 gladly share my code.

Oooo.. You should put that on dsource or somewhere. Hacking D sounds like a lot more fun than hacking C++. I wouldn't mind helping out on this one.

Wow, I am pretty sure I have already seen a D port of dmd on dsource. Was there a good reason to start yet another port of it?

I know about DParser, but it's somewhat outdated, incomplete and doesn't support code generation. It also diverged from DMD quite a lot so fixing it would be quite hard (I, too, plan to make it more D-ish - get rid of casts, replace void* "Array"s with type-safe equivalents etc - but not until it is 100% ready). I just believe rewriting it from scratch will be plain faster. I can also test the code much easier - if it produces exact same binary then it works correct.
Oct 12 2009
prev sibling parent "Sableteeth" <sableteeth gmail.com> writes:
Content-Type: text/plain;
	charset="utf-8"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable

"Denis Koroskin" <2korden gmail.com> =
=D1=81=D0=BE=D0=BE=D0=B1=D1=89=D0=B8=D0=BB/=D1=81=D0=BE=D0=BE=D0=B1=D1=89=
=D0=B8=D0=BB=D0=B0 =D0=B2 =
=D0=BD=D0=BE=D0=B2=D0=BE=D1=81=D1=82=D1=8F=D1=85 =
=D1=81=D0=BB=D0=B5=D0=B4=D1=83=D1=8E=D1=89=D0=B5=D0=B5: =
news:op.u1m30ituo7cclz korden-pc...
 On Sun, 11 Oct 2009 05:19:56 +0400, Walter Bright =20
 <newshound1 digitalmars.com> wrote:
=20
 I believe it won't work. It will always be slow and incomplete.
=20
 Instead, I would make it easier to embed DMD into an IDE: separate =

 from DMDBE, fix memory leaks, remove all the static data (so that code =

 would be re-intrable and it could work in different threads in =

 move most of DMD code into a DLL so that an IDE could dynamically link =

 with it and whatever it pleases with the source code.
=20
 In fact, that's what I do right now.
=20
 I'm writing my own D IDE in my spare time (in D, of course). I already =

 made a lot of progress and now it's time to start implementing source =

 analysis.
=20
 First thing I did is I made complete D bindings for C++ code. It =

 out quite well but it was leaking so badly that I dropped it.
=20
 Instead, I started porting DMD entirely to D (except the backend, of =20
 course), and I already got some great results. A few simple programs =20
 compile and produce byte-perfect binaries. It's still in its early =

 and there is a lot of work to do, but it will be finished soon =20
 (hopefully). It could probably become a part of an official =

 eventually. :)
=20
 If anyone is interested and is willing to test and/or help, I will =

 share my code.

Hi, Denis! I am beginner in D, but this theme is interesting for me - I very much = would like to take part in creation IDE.=20 I am interesting. I'd like to help. I hope I'll be able to help you? Contact me please at sableteeth gmail.com Sincerelly, Sergey __________ Information from ESET NOD32 Antivirus, version of virus signatur= e database 4862 (20100212) __________ The message was checked by ESET NOD32 Antivirus. http://www.eset.com
Apr 07 2010
prev sibling next sibling parent reply BLS <windevguy hotmail.de> writes:
On 11/10/2009 03:19, Walter Bright wrote:
 In my discussions with companies about adopting D, the major barrier
 that comes up over and over isn't Tango vs Phobos, dmd being GPL,
 debugger support, libraries, bugs, etc., although those are important.

 It's the IDE.

 They say that the productivity gains of D's improvements are
 overbalanced by the loss of productivity by moving away from an IDE. And
 what is it about an IDE that is so productive? Intellisense (Microsoft's
 word for autocompletion).

 So, while I'm not going to be writing an IDE, I figure that dmd can
 help. dmd already puts out .doc and .di files. How about putting out an
 xml file giving all the information needed for an IDE to implement
 autocompletion? There'd be one .xml file generated per .d source file.

 The nice thing about an xml file is while D is relatively easy to parse,
 xml is trivial. Furthermore, an xml format would be fairly robust in the
 face of changes to D syntax.

 What do you think?

FANTASTIC! Give it a go. Despite the intention to support a D IDE ... I would make sense to establish this feature in D1 too. Imagine XML2D which may help to port D1 code to D2. I would further suggest to consider to output to Oracle Berkeley DB XML .. Having an XQuery-based access to D-sources.. I guess you can imagine what this could mean. There are a couple of D IDEs around. I think what people mean with there is no D IDE is simply : "We want a MS Visual Studio like IDE as part of the D tool chain" One download, that's it. I agree. But we need a platform independent IDE. Our Options : 1) Force Decent.. (Java/SWT) 2) Use gtkD, create the IDE in D. (the only usable platform independent GUI atm.) 3) Use QT and C++. Let's re-use and adapt QT Creator. Having QT as standard GUI toolkit for D means that we can also reuse the QT Designer. Bjoern
Oct 11 2009
next sibling parent reply Lutger <lutger.blijdestijn gmail.com> writes:
BLS wrote:

...
 Our Options :
 1) Force Decent.. (Java/SWT)
 
 2) Use gtkD, create the IDE in D. (the only usable platform independent
   GUI atm.)
 
 3) Use QT and C++. Let's re-use and adapt QT Creator.
 
 Having QT as standard GUI toolkit for D means that we can also reuse the
 QT Designer.
 
 Bjoern

Why not QtD?
Oct 11 2009
parent reply BLS <windevguy hotmail.de> writes:
On 11/10/2009 16:54, Lutger wrote:
 BLS wrote:

 ...
 Our Options :
 1) Force Decent.. (Java/SWT)

 2) Use gtkD, create the IDE in D. (the only usable platform independent
    GUI atm.)

 3) Use QT and C++. Let's re-use and adapt QT Creator.

 Having QT as standard GUI toolkit for D means that we can also reuse the
 QT Designer.

 Bjoern

Why not QtD?

See QtD at dsource ... "No Windows support... we have lost the race against the DMD tool chain) Further QtD has no OSX support (AFAIK) I still hope that Walter has an eye on the QtD situation..
Oct 11 2009
parent Max Samukha <spambox d-coding.com> writes:
On Sun, 11 Oct 2009 17:49:52 +0200, BLS <windevguy hotmail.de> wrote:

On 11/10/2009 16:54, Lutger wrote:
 BLS wrote:

 ...
 Our Options :
 1) Force Decent.. (Java/SWT)

 2) Use gtkD, create the IDE in D. (the only usable platform independent
    GUI atm.)

 3) Use QT and C++. Let's re-use and adapt QT Creator.

 Having QT as standard GUI toolkit for D means that we can also reuse the
 QT Designer.

 Bjoern

Why not QtD?

See QtD at dsource ... "No Windows support... we have lost the race against the DMD tool chain)

Windows support is back now. Eldar has managed to find a workaround for the codegen bug. But there are still a number of issues to resolve before QtD will be usable for non-trivial applications.
 Further QtD has no OSX support (AFAIK)

I still hope that Walter has an eye on the QtD situation..

Someone has succesfully built QtD on OSX but it doesn't work there out-of-the-box (http://www.dsource.org/projects/qtd/wiki/MacCaseStudy)
Oct 11 2009
prev sibling next sibling parent reply Jacob Carlborg <doob me.com> writes:
On 10/11/09 16:38, BLS wrote:
 On 11/10/2009 03:19, Walter Bright wrote:
 In my discussions with companies about adopting D, the major barrier
 that comes up over and over isn't Tango vs Phobos, dmd being GPL,
 debugger support, libraries, bugs, etc., although those are important.

 It's the IDE.

 They say that the productivity gains of D's improvements are
 overbalanced by the loss of productivity by moving away from an IDE. And
 what is it about an IDE that is so productive? Intellisense (Microsoft's
 word for autocompletion).

 So, while I'm not going to be writing an IDE, I figure that dmd can
 help. dmd already puts out .doc and .di files. How about putting out an
 xml file giving all the information needed for an IDE to implement
 autocompletion? There'd be one .xml file generated per .d source file.

 The nice thing about an xml file is while D is relatively easy to parse,
 xml is trivial. Furthermore, an xml format would be fairly robust in the
 face of changes to D syntax.

 What do you think?

FANTASTIC! Give it a go. Despite the intention to support a D IDE ... I would make sense to establish this feature in D1 too. Imagine XML2D which may help to port D1 code to D2. I would further suggest to consider to output to Oracle Berkeley DB XML .. Having an XQuery-based access to D-sources.. I guess you can imagine what this could mean. There are a couple of D IDEs around. I think what people mean with there is no D IDE is simply : "We want a MS Visual Studio like IDE as part of the D tool chain" One download, that's it. I agree. But we need a platform independent IDE. Our Options : 1) Force Decent.. (Java/SWT)

I think this the our best option now
 2) Use gtkD, create the IDE in D. (the only usable platform independent
 GUI atm.)

 3) Use QT and C++. Let's re-use and adapt QT Creator.

 Having QT as standard GUI toolkit for D means that we can also reuse the
 QT Designer.

As far as I know neither Qt(d) or gtkD uses native controls on platforms other than linux, which to me is unacceptable. The look especially on mac. 4) Port entire eclipse to D, Frank Benoit (who started DWT, the tango version) was thinking of this.
 Bjoern

Oct 11 2009
next sibling parent Jacob Carlborg <doob me.com> writes:
On 10/11/09 22:37, Denis Koroskin wrote:
 On Mon, 12 Oct 2009 00:36:01 +0400, Jacob Carlborg <doob me.com> wrote:

 4)
 Port entire eclipse to D, Frank Benoit (who started DWT, the tango
 version) was thinking of this.

 Bjoern


What's the benefit? I believe it'll become even slower. Much slower.

Maybe we could try to slim it down, remove things that aren't needed.
Oct 11 2009
prev sibling parent reply Lutger <lutger.blijdestijn gmail.com> writes:
Jacob Carlborg wrote:
...
 As far as I know neither Qt(d) or gtkD uses native controls on platforms
 other than linux, which to me is unacceptable. The look especially on mac.

Qt used to try and look like native controls, but now it uses them directly.
Oct 11 2009
parent reply Jeremie Pelletier <jeremiep gmail.com> writes:
Lutger wrote:
 Jacob Carlborg wrote:
 ...
 As far as I know neither Qt(d) or gtkD uses native controls on platforms
 other than linux, which to me is unacceptable. The look especially on mac.

Qt used to try and look like native controls, but now it uses them directly.

It has pros and cons, Firefox too has the native look and feel without using the native controls, so it saves on the overhead of tons of GDI handles and can render the entire GUI in cairo.
Oct 11 2009
next sibling parent reply Chad J <chadjoan __spam.is.bad__gmail.com> writes:
Jeremie Pelletier wrote:
 Lutger wrote:
 Jacob Carlborg wrote:
 ...
 As far as I know neither Qt(d) or gtkD uses native controls on platforms
 other than linux, which to me is unacceptable. The look especially on
 mac.

Qt used to try and look like native controls, but now it uses them directly.

It has pros and cons, Firefox too has the native look and feel without using the native controls, so it saves on the overhead of tons of GDI handles and can render the entire GUI in cairo.

I actually rather dislike GTK from a user standpoint. It doesn't mesh well at all on my KDE linux setup. The file dialog is also a frequent source of annoyance, as it is different then everything else and seems to want to fight with me. Qt is much better at these things. Too bad we can't just make programs switch between GUI backends at will ;)
Oct 11 2009
next sibling parent reply Jeremie Pelletier <jeremiep gmail.com> writes:
Chad J wrote:
 Jeremie Pelletier wrote:
 Lutger wrote:
 Jacob Carlborg wrote:
 ...
 As far as I know neither Qt(d) or gtkD uses native controls on platforms
 other than linux, which to me is unacceptable. The look especially on
 mac.

directly.

using the native controls, so it saves on the overhead of tons of GDI handles and can render the entire GUI in cairo.

I actually rather dislike GTK from a user standpoint. It doesn't mesh well at all on my KDE linux setup. The file dialog is also a frequent source of annoyance, as it is different then everything else and seems to want to fight with me. Qt is much better at these things. Too bad we can't just make programs switch between GUI backends at will ;)

I use gnome myself on Ubuntu, I don't really like KDE :) We can make programs that switch between GUI backends, most just don't go in that direction. Its as easy as graphics engines having GL and DX backends for their render system. I agree however that GTK being in C is rather annoying, C is a great language but GUIs is one area where OOP really shines.
Oct 11 2009
next sibling parent reply Chad J <chadjoan __spam.is.bad__gmail.com> writes:
Jeremie Pelletier wrote:
 Chad J wrote:
 I actually rather dislike GTK from a user standpoint.  It doesn't mesh
 well at all on my KDE linux setup.  The file dialog is also a frequent
 source of annoyance, as it is different then everything else and seems
 to want to fight with me.  Qt is much better at these things.

 Too bad we can't just make programs switch between GUI backends at
 will ;)

I use gnome myself on Ubuntu, I don't really like KDE :)

Right. Personal preferences make it unlikely for people to realize the shortcomings of a library on systems that aren't their own. Thus my purpose isn't to start a silly Desktop Environment debate, but to point out hidden deficiencies in software. If Qt has deficiencies on Gnome or Windows or Mac OS or some other system I don't use regularly, it'd be swell to have that in the open so I know what to look for when developing my GUI apps. I'm actually curious about some of the less prominent ones like wxWidgets and FLTK in this regard.
 We can make programs that switch between GUI backends, most just don't
 go in that direction. Its as easy as graphics engines having GL and DX
 backends for their render system.
 

It was sort-of a joke. A cross platform gui library is, in principle, supposed to be the final abstraction. Once you target a gui lib, that should be it, you are done and it works on every system in an intuitive way. Too bad life isn't perfect. So now we talk of things like a cross-gui-library gui library. An abstraction of abstractions. That such a thing is potentially useful is, in and of itself, quite unfortunate and slightly comical :(
 I agree however that GTK being in C is rather annoying, C is a great
 language but GUIs is one area where OOP really shines.

True words. (dunno about immediate mode though... but that's another discussion) C makes for easier bindings at least ;)
Oct 11 2009
next sibling parent "Nick Sabalausky" <a a.a> writes:
"language_fan" <foo bar.com.invalid> wrote in message 
news:hav41h$2162$5 digitalmars.com...
 Sun, 11 Oct 2009 22:54:39 -0400, Chad J thusly wrote:

 Jeremie Pelletier wrote:

 We can make programs that switch between GUI backends, most just don't
 go in that direction. Its as easy as graphics engines having GL and DX
 backends for their render system.


Web 2.0 toolkits are platform neutral. You can define your own GUI with javascript & html & css. The interfaces (ajax, javascript, css, html, xml) have all been standardized. The objects on the GUI also do not waste low level handles like the traditional GUI toolkits do. I am sure that more locally usable Web 2.0 desktop applications are coming in the next few years.

That stuff is just plain garbage. It inevitably breaks when JS is disabled (and there are damn good reasons for doing so), and trying to put web apps on the desktop is just plain ass-backwards: web-apps are shit period, people should be trying to make desktop apps run on the web instead.
Oct 12 2009
prev sibling parent "Adam D. Ruppe" <destructionator gmail.com> writes:
On Mon, Oct 12, 2009 at 04:35:58PM -0400, Nick Sabalausky wrote:
 That stuff is just plain garbage. It inevitably breaks when JS is disabled 
 (and there are damn good reasons for doing so), and trying to put web apps 
 on the desktop is just plain ass-backwards: web-apps are shit period, people 
 should be trying to make desktop apps run on the web instead.

Amen. One of my personal projects is meant to be a "D Windowing System" with the hopes of making this happen - when it is usable, I'll post a link to the newsgroup. The idea is to take good ideas from Remote Desktop on Windows and X11 on *nix and combine the best, while cutting out the bad. Then, when you encounter one of these apps on the web, you just run it locally, like remote X, instead of in the browser. Work is going slowly since I'm busy with my paying work the vast majority of the time, but this is going to be cool.
 

-- Adam D. Ruppe http://arsdnet.net
Oct 12 2009
prev sibling next sibling parent reply =?ISO-8859-1?Q?=22J=E9r=F4me_M=2E_Berger=22?= <jeberger free.fr> writes:
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1; format=flowed
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable

Jeremie Pelletier wrote:
 I agree however that GTK being in C is rather annoying, C is a great=20
 language but GUIs is one area where OOP really shines.

Note that Gtk *is* object oriented despite being in C... Jerome --=20 mailto:jeberger free.fr http://jeberger.free.fr Jabber: jeberger jabber.fr
Oct 11 2009
parent reply Jeremie Pelletier <jeremiep gmail.com> writes:
Jrme M. Berger wrote:
 Jeremie Pelletier wrote:
 I agree however that GTK being in C is rather annoying, C is a great 
 language but GUIs is one area where OOP really shines.

Note that Gtk *is* object oriented despite being in C... Jerome

It's a sorry hack, you have to use casts everywhere you'd rely on polymorphism in D or C+ and its harder to remember, read, code, maintain, and doesn't have any performance gains over C++, the explicit struct pointer in C is the implicit 'this' in C++ and non-virtual methods can be optimized as direct calls with no vtbl indirections. I tried gtkD and I don't like using an OOP layer on top of a C interface because that adds overhead for the exact same features, most good GUI libraries should abstract the platform anyways so GTK is usually only seen there and not in user code. It's still more fun to use than the Windows' windowing API, which doesn't even support layout objects such as boxes and grids, now that's total pain!
Oct 11 2009
parent reply Yigal Chripun <yigal100 gmail.com> writes:
On 12/10/2009 07:33, Jeremie Pelletier wrote:
 Jrme M. Berger wrote:
 Jeremie Pelletier wrote:
 I agree however that GTK being in C is rather annoying, C is a great
 language but GUIs is one area where OOP really shines.

Note that Gtk *is* object oriented despite being in C... Jerome

It's a sorry hack, you have to use casts everywhere you'd rely on polymorphism in D or C+ and its harder to remember, read, code, maintain, and doesn't have any performance gains over C++, the explicit struct pointer in C is the implicit 'this' in C++ and non-virtual methods can be optimized as direct calls with no vtbl indirections. I tried gtkD and I don't like using an OOP layer on top of a C interface because that adds overhead for the exact same features, most good GUI libraries should abstract the platform anyways so GTK is usually only seen there and not in user code. It's still more fun to use than the Windows' windowing API, which doesn't even support layout objects such as boxes and grids, now that's total pain!

what about MS' WPF? It has all the bells and whistles of modern UI, doesn't it?
Oct 11 2009
parent reply Jeremie Pelletier <jeremiep gmail.com> writes:
Yigal Chripun wrote:
 On 12/10/2009 07:33, Jeremie Pelletier wrote:
 Jrme M. Berger wrote:
 Jeremie Pelletier wrote:
 I agree however that GTK being in C is rather annoying, C is a great
 language but GUIs is one area where OOP really shines.

Note that Gtk *is* object oriented despite being in C... Jerome

It's a sorry hack, you have to use casts everywhere you'd rely on polymorphism in D or C+ and its harder to remember, read, code, maintain, and doesn't have any performance gains over C++, the explicit struct pointer in C is the implicit 'this' in C++ and non-virtual methods can be optimized as direct calls with no vtbl indirections. I tried gtkD and I don't like using an OOP layer on top of a C interface because that adds overhead for the exact same features, most good GUI libraries should abstract the platform anyways so GTK is usually only seen there and not in user code. It's still more fun to use than the Windows' windowing API, which doesn't even support layout objects such as boxes and grids, now that's total pain!

what about MS' WPF? It has all the bells and whistles of modern UI, doesn't it?

Isn't that just a pretty layer on top of win32/com? I now only use native toolkits as backends for my gui abstraction layer, using this would only add a level of indirection and make no sense.
Oct 12 2009
parent reply Jeremie Pelletier <jeremiep gmail.com> writes:
Denis Koroskin wrote:
 On Mon, 12 Oct 2009 19:18:41 +0400, Jeremie Pelletier 
 <jeremiep gmail.com> wrote:
 
 Yigal Chripun wrote:
 On 12/10/2009 07:33, Jeremie Pelletier wrote:
 Jérôme M. Berger wrote:
 Jeremie Pelletier wrote:
 I agree however that GTK being in C is rather annoying, C is a great
 language but GUIs is one area where OOP really shines.

Note that Gtk *is* object oriented despite being in C... Jerome

It's a sorry hack, you have to use casts everywhere you'd rely on polymorphism in D or C+ and its harder to remember, read, code, maintain, and doesn't have any performance gains over C++, the explicit struct pointer in C is the implicit 'this' in C++ and non-virtual methods can be optimized as direct calls with no vtbl indirections. I tried gtkD and I don't like using an OOP layer on top of a C interface because that adds overhead for the exact same features, most good GUI libraries should abstract the platform anyways so GTK is usually only seen there and not in user code. It's still more fun to use than the Windows' windowing API, which doesn't even support layout objects such as boxes and grids, now that's total pain!

doesn't it?

Isn't that just a pretty layer on top of win32/com? I now only use native toolkits as backends for my gui abstraction layer, using this would only add a level of indirection and make no sense.

No, IIRC, it doesn't rely on Win32 API at all: Wikipedia quote:
 Designed to remove dependencies on the aging GDI subsystem, WPF is 
 built on DirectX, which provides hardware acceleration and enables 
 modern UI features like transparency, gradients and transforms.


Oh, I need to look into that!
Oct 12 2009
parent reply Ary Borenszweig <ary esperanto.org.ar> writes:
Jeremie Pelletier wrote:
 Denis Koroskin wrote:
 On Mon, 12 Oct 2009 19:18:41 +0400, Jeremie Pelletier 
 <jeremiep gmail.com> wrote:

 Yigal Chripun wrote:
 On 12/10/2009 07:33, Jeremie Pelletier wrote:
 Jérôme M. Berger wrote:
 Jeremie Pelletier wrote:
 I agree however that GTK being in C is rather annoying, C is a great
 language but GUIs is one area where OOP really shines.

Note that Gtk *is* object oriented despite being in C... Jerome

It's a sorry hack, you have to use casts everywhere you'd rely on polymorphism in D or C+ and its harder to remember, read, code, maintain, and doesn't have any performance gains over C++, the explicit struct pointer in C is the implicit 'this' in C++ and non-virtual methods can be optimized as direct calls with no vtbl indirections. I tried gtkD and I don't like using an OOP layer on top of a C interface because that adds overhead for the exact same features, most good GUI libraries should abstract the platform anyways so GTK is usually only seen there and not in user code. It's still more fun to use than the Windows' windowing API, which doesn't even support layout objects such as boxes and grids, now that's total pain!

doesn't it?

Isn't that just a pretty layer on top of win32/com? I now only use native toolkits as backends for my gui abstraction layer, using this would only add a level of indirection and make no sense.

No, IIRC, it doesn't rely on Win32 API at all: Wikipedia quote:
 Designed to remove dependencies on the aging GDI subsystem, WPF is 
 built on DirectX, which provides hardware acceleration and enables 
 modern UI features like transparency, gradients and transforms.


Oh, I need to look into that!

Yeah, we made a game in WPF in the company I work for, using bindings (*the* feature of WPF): it was sluggish. From the start I recommended doing it in a lower-level language (I recommended D!) but no one listened to me. It runs pretty slow with an amazing computer. I don't like WPF (nor Siliveright). :-P
Oct 12 2009
parent reply "Nick Sabalausky" <a a.a> writes:
"Ary Borenszweig" <ary esperanto.org.ar> wrote in message 
news:havvl7$1tlv$1 digitalmars.com...
 Yeah, we made a game in WPF in the company I work for, using bindings 
 (*the* feature of WPF): it was sluggish. From the start I recommended 
 doing it in a lower-level language (I recommended D!) but no one listened 
 to me. It runs pretty slow with an amazing computer. I don't like WPF (nor 
 Siliveright). :-P

Is that related to, or the same as, the win forms library from .NET? Because I've found that to be horribly broken for anyone that uses a light-on-dark color scheme. Certain limitations of it make it impossible to prevent certain things from exhibiting invisible-text-syndrome on such a setup, which inevitably results in an app that's just horribly unprofessional.
Oct 12 2009
parent "Nick Sabalausky" <a a.a> writes:
"Bill Baxter" <wbaxter gmail.com> wrote in message 
news:mailman.177.1255384255.20261.digitalmars-d puremagic.com...
 My understanding is that WPF is
 supposed to supersede WinForms, but it seems to me like they appeal to
 different audiences.  (Like people who want professional
 native-looking apps, vs the people who think the Windows Media Player
 has a nice  interface).

Hee hee hee, I like how you put that :)
Oct 12 2009
prev sibling parent Bill Baxter <wbaxter gmail.com> writes:
On Mon, Oct 12, 2009 at 1:42 PM, Nick Sabalausky <a a.a> wrote:
 "Ary Borenszweig" <ary esperanto.org.ar> wrote in message
 news:havvl7$1tlv$1 digitalmars.com...
 Yeah, we made a game in WPF in the company I work for, using bindings
 (*the* feature of WPF): it was sluggish. From the start I recommended
 doing it in a lower-level language (I recommended D!) but no one listened
 to me. It runs pretty slow with an amazing computer. I don't like WPF (nor
 Siliveright). :-P

Is that related to, or the same as, the win forms library from .NET? Because I've found that to be horribly broken for anyone that uses a light-on-dark color scheme. Certain limitations of it make it impossible to prevent certain things from exhibiting invisible-text-syndrome on such a setup, which inevitably results in an app that's just horribly unprofessional.

WinForms is a managed code wrapper around native win32 widgets. Kinda like MFC redone for C#. WPF doesn't wrap native widgets and uses XML for everything. But both are for the CLR. So if you want to use them with C++ it has to be managed C++ (aka C++/CLI). My understanding is that WPF is supposed to supersede WinForms, but it seems to me like they appeal to different audiences. (Like people who want professional native-looking apps, vs the people who think the Windows Media Player has a nice interface). --bb
Oct 12 2009
prev sibling parent reply Jacob Carlborg <doob me.com> writes:
On 10/12/09 04:14, Chad J wrote:
 Jeremie Pelletier wrote:
 Lutger wrote:
 Jacob Carlborg wrote:
 ...
 As far as I know neither Qt(d) or gtkD uses native controls on platforms
 other than linux, which to me is unacceptable. The look especially on
 mac.

Qt used to try and look like native controls, but now it uses them directly.

It has pros and cons, Firefox too has the native look and feel without using the native controls, so it saves on the overhead of tons of GDI handles and can render the entire GUI in cairo.

I actually rather dislike GTK from a user standpoint. It doesn't mesh well at all on my KDE linux setup. The file dialog is also a frequent source of annoyance, as it is different then everything else and seems to want to fight with me. Qt is much better at these things. Too bad we can't just make programs switch between GUI backends at will ;)

Why not have a GUI toolkit available on almost all platforms that uses native controls just like DWT?
Oct 12 2009
parent reply Jacob Carlborg <doob me.com> writes:
On 10/12/09 14:11, language_fan wrote:
 Mon, 12 Oct 2009 14:02:11 +0200, Jacob Carlborg thusly wrote:

 On 10/12/09 04:14, Chad J wrote:
 Too bad we can't just make programs switch between GUI backends at will
 ;)

Why not have a GUI toolkit available on almost all platforms that uses native controls just like DWT?

The list of native platforms SWT supports is this: Win32 WPF (under development) AIX, FreeBSD, Linux, HP-UX, Solaris: Motif GTK+ Mac OS X: Carbon Cocoa QNX Photon Pocket PC As a FLTK2, Qt 3.x, Qt 4.x, Swing, and (forked) Harmonia user I fail to see how SWT is more native than the ones I develop for. All SWT applications look weird, unthemed, and have horrible usability issues in the file open/save dialogs. DWT brings another level of cruft above the "lightweight" SWT and performs badly.

As a said previously SWT is more native because it uses the native GUI library available on the current platform, for windows (before vista) win32, osx cocoa and on linux gtk. It doesn't decide how a button should look, it doesn't try do draw a button that is similar to the natives, it just call the native library to draw the button. I don't know what you mean by "unthemed" but if you refer to that applications on windows don't get the winxp look you have the same problem if you create the application in c++ or c and uses win32. It's caused by an older dll is loaded as default and to get the winxp look you have to request it to load the newer dll with a manifest file. Welcome to dlls. If you have problems with the open/save dialogs in SWT either you will have the same problem in other native applications because it uses the native dialogs or there's a bug in SWT. DWT doesn't add any extra levels that SWT doesn't have. In fact it removes one, the jni wrappers. DWT is a complete port of SWT to D, with only native code.
Oct 12 2009
next sibling parent reply Jeremie Pelletier <jeremiep gmail.com> writes:
language_fan wrote:
 Mon, 12 Oct 2009 18:54:25 +0200, Jacob Carlborg thusly wrote:
 
 On 10/12/09 14:11, language_fan wrote:
 Mon, 12 Oct 2009 14:02:11 +0200, Jacob Carlborg thusly wrote:

 On 10/12/09 04:14, Chad J wrote:
 Too bad we can't just make programs switch between GUI backends at
 will ;)

native controls just like DWT?

Win32 WPF (under development) AIX, FreeBSD, Linux, HP-UX, Solaris: Motif GTK+ Mac OS X: Carbon Cocoa QNX Photon Pocket PC As a FLTK2, Qt 3.x, Qt 4.x, Swing, and (forked) Harmonia user I fail to see how SWT is more native than the ones I develop for. All SWT applications look weird, unthemed, and have horrible usability issues in the file open/save dialogs. DWT brings another level of cruft above the "lightweight" SWT and performs badly.

library available on the current platform, for windows (before vista) win32, osx cocoa and on linux gtk. It doesn't decide how a button should look, it doesn't try do draw a button that is similar to the natives, it just call the native library to draw the button.

The problem is, 99% of win32 users use the win32 gui toolkit on win32, 99% of osx users use cocoa, but on Linux/BSD maybe about 40% use gtk+. It is not The native toolkit to use. I do not even have it installed on my system.
 I don't know what you mean by "unthemed" but if you refer to that
 applications on windows don't get the winxp look you have the same
 problem if you create the application in c++ or c and uses win32. It's
 caused by an older dll is loaded as default and to get the winxp look
 you have to request it to load the newer dll with a manifest file.
 Welcome to dlls.

I mostly work on *nixen. The unthemed means that I do not have *any* gtk+ libraries installed anywhere so it defaults to the ugly default theme. To me gtk+ does not have the native feel as I never see any application written in it. Like I said, I only use { FLTK2, Qt 3.x, Qt 4.x, Swing, and (forked) Harmonia}. I am sorry if you have trouble reading that. Whenever an application comes with its own (statically linked) gtk+ libs, it will look bad. I do not have any "control panel" to change the look and feel of the gtk+ applications.
 If you have problems with the open/save dialogs in SWT either you will
 have the same problem in other native applications because it uses the
 native dialogs or there's a bug in SWT.

Look, this is what I get on Win32: http://johnbokma.com/textpad/select-a-file-dialog.png on Linux: http://www.matusiak.eu/numerodix/blog/wp-content/uploads/20050710- kdefilechooser.png on Java: http://www.dil.univ-mrs.fr/~garreta/docJava/tutorial/figures/uiswing/ components/FileChooserOpenMetal.png You can probably see something that I have started to call 'consistency'. Almost the same buttons and layouts on every platform. I immediately know how it works. The same design has been there since Windows 95, if I recall correctly. This is what many people have learned to live with. Now every time I see a gtk+/swt/dwt application I wonder where the heck that unintuitive terrible piece of cr*p came: http://book.javanb.com/swt-the-standard-widget-toolkit/images/0321256638/ graphics/14fig03.gif Native? It might very well use native binaries on my platform, but the native feel ends there.

I get an entirely different file dialog on win7, and my gnome dialog on ubuntu looks nothing like the screenshot you linked. This is the win7 dialog: http://i.msdn.microsoft.com/Dd758094.Libraries_CommonFileDialog%28en-us,VS.85%29.png This is close to what I have on ubuntu: http://blogs.gnome.org/mortenw/wp-content/blogs.dir/26/files/2009/02/file-dialog2.png I have no Qt or KDE on both my linux installs (ubuntu 9 and a cross linux from scratch), the GUI looks smooth and works great, using the latest gnome 2.6 libraries. Why don't you install GTK+? You can't whine about applications built for gnome looking ugly if you don't have gtk installed, it can live pretty well alongside Qt, I used to do that until i switched to gnome after 2.6 was released.
Oct 12 2009
next sibling parent Jeremie Pelletier <jeremiep gmail.com> writes:
language_fan wrote:
 Mon, 12 Oct 2009 13:54:53 -0400, Jeremie Pelletier thusly wrote:
 
 language_fan wrote:
 I get an entirely different file dialog on win7, and my gnome dialog on
 ubuntu looks nothing like the screenshot you linked.

 This is the win7 dialog:
 http://i.msdn.microsoft.com/Dd758094.Libraries_CommonFileDialog%28en-

This is pretty good in my book.
 This is close to what I have on ubuntu:
 http://blogs.gnome.org/mortenw/wp-content/blogs.dir/26/files/2009/02/

Yuck.
 I have no Qt or KDE on both my linux installs (ubuntu 9 and a cross
 linux from scratch), the GUI looks smooth and works great, using the
 latest gnome 2.6 libraries.

 Why don't you install GTK+? You can't whine about applications built for
 gnome looking ugly if you don't have gtk installed, it can live pretty
 well alongside Qt, I used to do that until i switched to gnome after 2.6
 was released.

I have little desire to embrace inferior technologies. Attempting OOP on C is ridiculous, it should be called POOP. It is a personal choice. Besides FLTK2/Qt work pays well enough. I also have no time for desktop environment wars, tyvm. GTK+ != Gnome, as you well might know. I simply have no reason to install libgtk* since no package depends on them.

I don't know if you're talking about gtk 1 or 2, I don't have gtk1 installed but gtk2 is always one of the first package i build when I create a linux from scratch, so many things depend on it. I never had any issues using gnome without qt, yet I had plenty using KDE without gtk. Its just a matter of what software you build, I usually don't like the feel of KDE applications, its a matter of preferences there. I agree that gnome being coded in C is plain ugly in the code, but the results are still very convenient to use. Oh and I know gtk != gnome, but its been a while since it left gimp to become part of the gnome set of libraries.
Oct 12 2009
prev sibling parent grauzone <none example.net> writes:
language_fan wrote:
 I have little desire to embrace inferior technologies. Attempting OOP on 
 C is ridiculous, it should be called POOP. It is a personal choice. 

They're also developing a C# like language, that uses the GTK object model as base: http://live.gnome.org/Vala
Oct 12 2009
prev sibling next sibling parent Jacob Carlborg <doob me.com> writes:
On 10/12/09 19:41, language_fan wrote:
 Mon, 12 Oct 2009 18:54:25 +0200, Jacob Carlborg thusly wrote:

 On 10/12/09 14:11, language_fan wrote:
 Mon, 12 Oct 2009 14:02:11 +0200, Jacob Carlborg thusly wrote:

 On 10/12/09 04:14, Chad J wrote:
 Too bad we can't just make programs switch between GUI backends at
 will ;)

Why not have a GUI toolkit available on almost all platforms that uses native controls just like DWT?

The list of native platforms SWT supports is this: Win32 WPF (under development) AIX, FreeBSD, Linux, HP-UX, Solaris: Motif GTK+ Mac OS X: Carbon Cocoa QNX Photon Pocket PC As a FLTK2, Qt 3.x, Qt 4.x, Swing, and (forked) Harmonia user I fail to see how SWT is more native than the ones I develop for. All SWT applications look weird, unthemed, and have horrible usability issues in the file open/save dialogs. DWT brings another level of cruft above the "lightweight" SWT and performs badly.

As a said previously SWT is more native because it uses the native GUI library available on the current platform, for windows (before vista) win32, osx cocoa and on linux gtk. It doesn't decide how a button should look, it doesn't try do draw a button that is similar to the natives, it just call the native library to draw the button.

The problem is, 99% of win32 users use the win32 gui toolkit on win32, 99% of osx users use cocoa, but on Linux/BSD maybe about 40% use gtk+. It is not The native toolkit to use. I do not even have it installed on my system.
 I don't know what you mean by "unthemed" but if you refer to that
 applications on windows don't get the winxp look you have the same
 problem if you create the application in c++ or c and uses win32. It's
 caused by an older dll is loaded as default and to get the winxp look
 you have to request it to load the newer dll with a manifest file.
 Welcome to dlls.

I mostly work on *nixen. The unthemed means that I do not have *any* gtk+ libraries installed anywhere so it defaults to the ugly default theme. To me gtk+ does not have the native feel as I never see any application written in it. Like I said, I only use { FLTK2, Qt 3.x, Qt 4.x, Swing, and (forked) Harmonia}. I am sorry if you have trouble reading that. Whenever an application comes with its own (statically linked) gtk+ libs, it will look bad. I do not have any "control panel" to change the look and feel of the gtk+ applications.
 If you have problems with the open/save dialogs in SWT either you will
 have the same problem in other native applications because it uses the
 native dialogs or there's a bug in SWT.

Look, this is what I get on Win32: http://johnbokma.com/textpad/select-a-file-dialog.png on Linux: http://www.matusiak.eu/numerodix/blog/wp-content/uploads/20050710- kdefilechooser.png on Java: http://www.dil.univ-mrs.fr/~garreta/docJava/tutorial/figures/uiswing/ components/FileChooserOpenMetal.png You can probably see something that I have started to call 'consistency'. Almost the same buttons and layouts on every platform. I immediately know how it works. The same design has been there since Windows 95, if I recall correctly. This is what many people have learned to live with. Now every time I see a gtk+/swt/dwt application I wonder where the heck that unintuitive terrible piece of cr*p came: http://book.javanb.com/swt-the-standard-widget-toolkit/images/0321256638/ graphics/14fig03.gif Native? It might very well use native binaries on my platform, but the native feel ends there.

Of course it will look strange when you use an application built on a toolkit it isn't built for. Will have to wait for a Qt version.
Oct 12 2009
prev sibling next sibling parent Chad J <chadjoan __spam.is.bad__gmail.com> writes:
language_fan wrote:
 
 Look, this is what I get on Win32:
 
 http://johnbokma.com/textpad/select-a-file-dialog.png
 
 on Linux:
 
 http://www.matusiak.eu/numerodix/blog/wp-content/uploads/20050710-
 kdefilechooser.png
 
 on Java:
 
 http://www.dil.univ-mrs.fr/~garreta/docJava/tutorial/figures/uiswing/
 components/FileChooserOpenMetal.png
 
 You can probably see something that I have started to call 'consistency'. 
 Almost the same buttons and layouts on every platform. I immediately know 
 how it works. The same design has been there since Windows 95, if I 
 recall correctly. This is what many people have learned to live with.
 
 Now every time I see a gtk+/swt/dwt application I wonder where the heck 
 that unintuitive terrible piece of cr*p came:
 
 http://book.javanb.com/swt-the-standard-widget-toolkit/images/0321256638/
 graphics/14fig03.gif
 
 Native? It might very well use native binaries on my platform, but the 
 native feel ends there.

Um. It's even worse for me. Yours may not look native, but at least it doesn't look like the sh*t gtk gives me: http://post-boredom.net/filedialog/lolwut.png By comparison, my native look and feel (kde4): http://post-boredom.net/filedialog/muchbetter.png Qt gets this right.
Oct 12 2009
prev sibling parent Christopher Wright <dhasenan gmail.com> writes:
language_fan wrote:
 Now every time I see a gtk+/swt/dwt application I wonder where the heck 
 that unintuitive terrible piece of cr*p came:
 
 http://book.javanb.com/swt-the-standard-widget-toolkit/images/0321256638/
 graphics/14fig03.gif

2002, maybe?
Oct 12 2009
prev sibling next sibling parent reply "Nick Sabalausky" <a a.a> writes:
Jeremie Pelletier" <jeremiep gmail.com> wrote in message 
news:hats2b$as0$1 digitalmars.com...
 Lutger wrote:
 Jacob Carlborg wrote:
 ...
 As far as I know neither Qt(d) or gtkD uses native controls on platforms
 other than linux, which to me is unacceptable. The look especially on 
 mac.

Qt used to try and look like native controls, but now it uses them directly.

It has pros and cons, Firefox too has the native look and feel without using the native controls, so it saves on the overhead of tons of GDI handles and can render the entire GUI in cairo.

I use FF a lot and umm...no it doesn't. Not remotely. It's always stood out as every bit of a blatant GTK app as GAIM, GIMP, or Thunderbird. As soon as I can find a browser with equivilents too all my essential hacks (*cough* extensions) and *real* controls (which rules out IE and Opera. And Chrome/Safari... AH HA HA HA!), then I'm ditching this garbage.
Oct 11 2009
next sibling parent Jeremie Pelletier <jeremiep gmail.com> writes:
Jarrett Billingsley wrote:
 On Mon, Oct 12, 2009 at 12:22 AM, Nick Sabalausky <a a.a> wrote:
 Jeremie Pelletier" <jeremiep gmail.com> wrote in message
 news:hats2b$as0$1 digitalmars.com...
 Lutger wrote:
 Jacob Carlborg wrote:
 ...
 As far as I know neither Qt(d) or gtkD uses native controls on platforms
 other than linux, which to me is unacceptable. The look especially on
 mac.

directly.

using the native controls, so it saves on the overhead of tons of GDI handles and can render the entire GUI in cairo.

as every bit of a blatant GTK app as GAIM, GIMP, or Thunderbird. As soon as I can find a browser with equivilents too all my essential hacks (*cough* extensions) and *real* controls (which rules out IE and Opera. And Chrome/Safari... AH HA HA HA!), then I'm ditching this garbage.

..huh? What OS are you on? It looks perfectly native on XP, Ubuntu, and Kubuntu for me..

Same here, Firefox/Thunderbird looks great in 7 and Ubuntu. Of course if you are using KDE and build firefox against GTK you won't have the look you're expecting, you need to build firefox against Qt for that :)
Oct 11 2009
prev sibling next sibling parent reply Don <nospam nospam.com> writes:
Nick Sabalausky wrote:
 Jeremie Pelletier" <jeremiep gmail.com> wrote in message 
 news:hats2b$as0$1 digitalmars.com...
 Lutger wrote:
 Jacob Carlborg wrote:
 ...
 As far as I know neither Qt(d) or gtkD uses native controls on platforms
 other than linux, which to me is unacceptable. The look especially on 
 mac.

directly.

using the native controls, so it saves on the overhead of tons of GDI handles and can render the entire GUI in cairo.

I use FF a lot and umm...no it doesn't. Not remotely. It's always stood out as every bit of a blatant GTK app as GAIM, GIMP, or Thunderbird. As soon as I can find a browser with equivilents too all my essential hacks (*cough* extensions) and *real* controls (which rules out IE and Opera. And Chrome/Safari... AH HA HA HA!), then I'm ditching this garbage.

Are you talking about FF 3.5? It's a really poor product. Crashes all the time, has some terrible UI misfeatures. I'm really amazed they shipped it in that condition.
Oct 12 2009
next sibling parent reply Ary Borenszweig <ary esperanto.org.ar> writes:
Jarrett Billingsley wrote:
 On Mon, Oct 12, 2009 at 3:39 AM, Don <nospam nospam.com> wrote:
 Are you talking about FF 3.5? It's a really poor product. Crashes all the
 time, has some terrible UI misfeatures. I'm really amazed they shipped it in
 that condition.

I will gladly join in on the FF3.5 bashing. What a piece. EXTREMELY unresponsive, uses 3-4 times as much memory as FF3, flash videos don't play without hiccuping every five seconds, and it would just go into infinite loops or something and become completely unresponsive. I actually downgraded to 3.0 and it was like a new browser again! :P

Me too. And when clicking a tab sometimes it will make a whole new window out of it. There's even an extension to fix that! :-P
Oct 12 2009
parent Ary Borenszweig <ary esperanto.org.ar> writes:
Jarrett Billingsley wrote:
 On Mon, Oct 12, 2009 at 3:23 PM, Ary Borenszweig <ary esperanto.org.ar> wrote:
 Jarrett Billingsley wrote:
 On Mon, Oct 12, 2009 at 3:39 AM, Don <nospam nospam.com> wrote:
 Are you talking about FF 3.5? It's a really poor product. Crashes all the
 time, has some terrible UI misfeatures. I'm really amazed they shipped it
 in
 that condition.

unresponsive, uses 3-4 times as much memory as FF3, flash videos don't play without hiccuping every five seconds, and it would just go into infinite loops or something and become completely unresponsive. I actually downgraded to 3.0 and it was like a new browser again! :P

out of it. There's even an extension to fix that! :-P

Yes OMG I hate that. Sometimes I don't even have to click the tab, just middle-click-scrolling will do that. I wasn't aware there was even an extension :P

Here it is: https://addons.mozilla.org/en-US/firefox/addon/12276 But I eventually uninstalled it because Firefox started working very weired. But maybe that's just FF and not the extension. I think they are trying to copy Chrome's features, I don't know why... I always want to have my tabs in a single window, why would I want to go back to IE6?
Oct 12 2009
prev sibling parent reply "Nick Sabalausky" <a a.a> writes:
"Don" <nospam nospam.com> wrote in message 
news:haumhk$1oet$1 digitalmars.com...
 Nick Sabalausky wrote:
 Jeremie Pelletier" <jeremiep gmail.com> wrote in message 
 news:hats2b$as0$1 digitalmars.com...
 It has pros and cons, Firefox too has the native look and feel without 
 using the native controls, so it saves on the overhead of tons of GDI 
 handles and can render the entire GUI in cairo.

I use FF a lot and umm...no it doesn't. Not remotely. It's always stood out as every bit of a blatant GTK app as GAIM, GIMP, or Thunderbird. As soon as I can find a browser with equivilents too all my essential hacks (*cough* extensions) and *real* controls (which rules out IE and Opera. And Chrome/Safari... AH HA HA HA!), then I'm ditching this garbage.

Are you talking about FF 3.5? It's a really poor product. Crashes all the time, has some terrible UI misfeatures. I'm really amazed they shipped it in that condition.

Never touched FF3.5, I tried FF3 and it was such a worthless POS I went back to FF2, which is still a total POS, or course, but at least this way I have separate back/forward dropdowns, winestripe actually works, and I have no awfulbar *without* needing an anti-awfulbar addon (mozilla's standard strategy: force idiotic ill-conceived changes on everyone and rely on third-party add-on hacks for anyone who wants it fixed).
Oct 12 2009
parent reply "Lars T. Kyllingstad" <public kyllingen.NOSPAMnet> writes:
Nick Sabalausky wrote:
 "Don" <nospam nospam.com> wrote in message 
 news:haumhk$1oet$1 digitalmars.com...
 Nick Sabalausky wrote:
 Jeremie Pelletier" <jeremiep gmail.com> wrote in message 
 news:hats2b$as0$1 digitalmars.com...
 It has pros and cons, Firefox too has the native look and feel without 
 using the native controls, so it saves on the overhead of tons of GDI 
 handles and can render the entire GUI in cairo.

out as every bit of a blatant GTK app as GAIM, GIMP, or Thunderbird. As soon as I can find a browser with equivilents too all my essential hacks (*cough* extensions) and *real* controls (which rules out IE and Opera. And Chrome/Safari... AH HA HA HA!), then I'm ditching this garbage.

time, has some terrible UI misfeatures. I'm really amazed they shipped it in that condition.

Never touched FF3.5, I tried FF3 and it was such a worthless POS I went back to FF2, which is still a total POS, or course, but at least this way I have separate back/forward dropdowns, winestripe actually works, and I have no awfulbar *without* needing an anti-awfulbar addon (mozilla's standard strategy: force idiotic ill-conceived changes on everyone and rely on third-party add-on hacks for anyone who wants it fixed).

Um, so why are you still using FF at all? :) -Lars
Oct 12 2009
parent "Nick Sabalausky" <a a.a> writes:
"Lars T. Kyllingstad" <public kyllingen.NOSPAMnet> wrote in message 
news:hb05lr$2bv5$2 digitalmars.com...
 Nick Sabalausky wrote:
 Never touched FF3.5, I tried FF3 and it was such a worthless POS I went 
 back to FF2, which is still a total POS, or course, but at least this way 
 I have separate back/forward dropdowns, winestripe actually works, and I 
 have no awfulbar *without* needing an anti-awfulbar addon (mozilla's 
 standard strategy: force idiotic ill-conceived changes on everyone and 
 rely on third-party add-on hacks for anyone who wants it fixed).

Um, so why are you still using FF at all? :)

Very good question actually. In short: As badly as FF sucks, everything else sucks even more. The main reason: For me, the web would be completely unusable without AdBlock Plus, NoScript and BetterPrivacy (For the record, I don't have a problem with ads on web pages, as long as they're 100% static, zero animation, zero sound, zero DHTML, zero of those ads-that-look-like-links-embedded-into-the-actual-text-content, and don't take up half the page.) Repagination, Linkification, DownloadHelper, DownThemAll, BugMeNot and TabMix Plus are...not strictly essential...but still things I'd rather not have to go without. This stuff rules out IE (very limited in customization and available add-ons), Opera (the alleged add-on system is a pathetic joke), and Safari (Customization in an Apple app? Ah ha ha ha ha ha!). Plus there's a *lot* of other details on how I like to have things set up that nothing but FF allows me to do (even though it often requires an addon, such as TabMix Plus). This rules out all the ones aboves, plus Chrome. So for all practical purposes, that only leaves FF. Secondary reason: I *HATE* apps that force a skin down my throat, even more than I hate GTK apps (at least GTK makes a small token effort to look vaguely like my system is supposed to look). This provides further strikes against Chrome and Safari. Chrome also forces an extra always-resident process onto my system whether I want it or not. (I don't. And I don't give a crap what feature it may provide.) And Safari, of course, has even more strikes against it, but Safari's such a joke anyway its not even worth mentioning any further.
Oct 12 2009
prev sibling parent "Nick Sabalausky" <a a.a> writes:
"Jarrett Billingsley" <jarrett.billingsley gmail.com> wrote in message 
news:mailman.164.1255324638.20261.digitalmars-d puremagic.com...
 On Mon, Oct 12, 2009 at 12:22 AM, Nick Sabalausky <a a.a> wrote:
 Jeremie Pelletier" <jeremiep gmail.com> wrote in message
 news:hats2b$as0$1 digitalmars.com...
 It has pros and cons, Firefox too has the native look and feel without
 using the native controls, so it saves on the overhead of tons of GDI
 handles and can render the entire GUI in cairo.

I use FF a lot and umm...no it doesn't. Not remotely. It's always stood out as every bit of a blatant GTK app as GAIM, GIMP, or Thunderbird. As soon as I can find a browser with equivilents too all my essential hacks (*cough* extensions) and *real* controls (which rules out IE and Opera. And Chrome/Safari... AH HA HA HA!), then I'm ditching this garbage.

..huh? What OS are you on? It looks perfectly native on XP, Ubuntu, and Kubuntu for me..

XP
Oct 12 2009
prev sibling parent Jacob Carlborg <doob me.com> writes:
On 10/12/09 02:08, Jeremie Pelletier wrote:
 Lutger wrote:
 Jacob Carlborg wrote:
 ...
 As far as I know neither Qt(d) or gtkD uses native controls on platforms
 other than linux, which to me is unacceptable. The look especially on
 mac.

Qt used to try and look like native controls, but now it uses them directly.

It has pros and cons, Firefox too has the native look and feel without using the native controls, so it saves on the overhead of tons of GDI handles and can render the entire GUI in cairo.

In the Mac version for a long time they used the older tabs from Mac OS X 10.4 or even older. That's the problem not using native controls, if the operating system change them it's a lot of more work to update your application.
Oct 12 2009
prev sibling next sibling parent "Denis Koroskin" <2korden gmail.com> writes:
On Mon, 12 Oct 2009 00:36:01 +0400, Jacob Carlborg <doob me.com> wrote:

 4)
 Port entire eclipse to D, Frank Benoit (who started DWT, the tango  
 version) was thinking of this.

 Bjoern


What's the benefit? I believe it'll become even slower. Much slower.
Oct 11 2009
prev sibling next sibling parent Jarrett Billingsley <jarrett.billingsley gmail.com> writes:
On Mon, Oct 12, 2009 at 12:22 AM, Nick Sabalausky <a a.a> wrote:
 Jeremie Pelletier" <jeremiep gmail.com> wrote in message
 news:hats2b$as0$1 digitalmars.com...
 Lutger wrote:
 Jacob Carlborg wrote:
 ...
 As far as I know neither Qt(d) or gtkD uses native controls on platforms
 other than linux, which to me is unacceptable. The look especially on
 mac.

Qt used to try and look like native controls, but now it uses them directly.

It has pros and cons, Firefox too has the native look and feel without using the native controls, so it saves on the overhead of tons of GDI handles and can render the entire GUI in cairo.

I use FF a lot and umm...no it doesn't. Not remotely. It's always stood out as every bit of a blatant GTK app as GAIM, GIMP, or Thunderbird. As soon as I can find a browser with equivilents too all my essential hacks (*cough* extensions) and *real* controls (which rules out IE and Opera. And Chrome/Safari... AH HA HA HA!), then I'm ditching this garbage.

..huh? What OS are you on? It looks perfectly native on XP, Ubuntu, and Kubuntu for me..
Oct 11 2009
prev sibling next sibling parent language_fan <foo bar.com.invalid> writes:
Sun, 11 Oct 2009 22:54:39 -0400, Chad J thusly wrote:

 Jeremie Pelletier wrote:
 
 We can make programs that switch between GUI backends, most just don't
 go in that direction. Its as easy as graphics engines having GL and DX
 backends for their render system.


Web 2.0 toolkits are platform neutral. You can define your own GUI with javascript & html & css. The interfaces (ajax, javascript, css, html, xml) have all been standardized. The objects on the GUI also do not waste low level handles like the traditional GUI toolkits do. I am sure that more locally usable Web 2.0 desktop applications are coming in the next few years.
Oct 12 2009
prev sibling next sibling parent language_fan <foo bar.com.invalid> writes:
Mon, 12 Oct 2009 14:02:11 +0200, Jacob Carlborg thusly wrote:

 On 10/12/09 04:14, Chad J wrote:
 Too bad we can't just make programs switch between GUI backends at will
 ;)

Why not have a GUI toolkit available on almost all platforms that uses native controls just like DWT?

The list of native platforms SWT supports is this: Win32 WPF (under development) AIX, FreeBSD, Linux, HP-UX, Solaris: Motif GTK+ Mac OS X: Carbon Cocoa QNX Photon Pocket PC As a FLTK2, Qt 3.x, Qt 4.x, Swing, and (forked) Harmonia user I fail to see how SWT is more native than the ones I develop for. All SWT applications look weird, unthemed, and have horrible usability issues in the file open/save dialogs. DWT brings another level of cruft above the "lightweight" SWT and performs badly.
Oct 12 2009
prev sibling next sibling parent "Denis Koroskin" <2korden gmail.com> writes:
On Mon, 12 Oct 2009 19:18:41 +0400, Jeremie Pelletier <jeremiep gmail.co=
m>  =

wrote:

 Yigal Chripun wrote:
 On 12/10/2009 07:33, Jeremie Pelletier wrote:
 J=C3=A9r=C3=B4me M. Berger wrote:
 Jeremie Pelletier wrote:
 I agree however that GTK being in C is rather annoying, C is a gre=





 language but GUIs is one area where OOP really shines.

Note that Gtk *is* object oriented despite being in C... Jerome

It's a sorry hack, you have to use casts everywhere you'd rely on polymorphism in D or C+ and its harder to remember, read, code, maintain, and doesn't have any performance gains over C++, the expli=



 struct pointer in C is the implicit 'this' in C++ and non-virtual
 methods can be optimized as direct calls with no vtbl indirections.

 I tried gtkD and I don't like using an OOP layer on top of a C  =



 interface
 because that adds overhead for the exact same features, most good GU=



 libraries should abstract the platform anyways so GTK is usually onl=



 seen there and not in user code.

 It's still more fun to use than the Windows' windowing API, which
 doesn't even support layout objects such as boxes and grids, now tha=



 total pain!



 doesn't it?

Isn't that just a pretty layer on top of win32/com? I now only use =

 native toolkits as backends for my gui abstraction layer, using this  =

 would only add a level of indirection and make no sense.

No, IIRC, it doesn't rely on Win32 API at all: Wikipedia quote:
 Designed to remove dependencies on the aging GDI subsystem, WPF is bui=

 on DirectX, which provides hardware acceleration and enables modern UI=

 features like transparency, gradients and transforms.

Oct 12 2009
prev sibling next sibling parent Jarrett Billingsley <jarrett.billingsley gmail.com> writes:
On Mon, Oct 12, 2009 at 3:39 AM, Don <nospam nospam.com> wrote:
 Are you talking about FF 3.5? It's a really poor product. Crashes all the
 time, has some terrible UI misfeatures. I'm really amazed they shipped it in
 that condition.

I will gladly join in on the FF3.5 bashing. What a piece. EXTREMELY unresponsive, uses 3-4 times as much memory as FF3, flash videos don't play without hiccuping every five seconds, and it would just go into infinite loops or something and become completely unresponsive. I actually downgraded to 3.0 and it was like a new browser again! :P
Oct 12 2009
prev sibling next sibling parent language_fan <foo bar.com.invalid> writes:
Mon, 12 Oct 2009 18:54:25 +0200, Jacob Carlborg thusly wrote:

 On 10/12/09 14:11, language_fan wrote:
 Mon, 12 Oct 2009 14:02:11 +0200, Jacob Carlborg thusly wrote:

 On 10/12/09 04:14, Chad J wrote:
 Too bad we can't just make programs switch between GUI backends at
 will ;)

Why not have a GUI toolkit available on almost all platforms that uses native controls just like DWT?

The list of native platforms SWT supports is this: Win32 WPF (under development) AIX, FreeBSD, Linux, HP-UX, Solaris: Motif GTK+ Mac OS X: Carbon Cocoa QNX Photon Pocket PC As a FLTK2, Qt 3.x, Qt 4.x, Swing, and (forked) Harmonia user I fail to see how SWT is more native than the ones I develop for. All SWT applications look weird, unthemed, and have horrible usability issues in the file open/save dialogs. DWT brings another level of cruft above the "lightweight" SWT and performs badly.

As a said previously SWT is more native because it uses the native GUI library available on the current platform, for windows (before vista) win32, osx cocoa and on linux gtk. It doesn't decide how a button should look, it doesn't try do draw a button that is similar to the natives, it just call the native library to draw the button.

The problem is, 99% of win32 users use the win32 gui toolkit on win32, 99% of osx users use cocoa, but on Linux/BSD maybe about 40% use gtk+. It is not The native toolkit to use. I do not even have it installed on my system.
 I don't know what you mean by "unthemed" but if you refer to that
 applications on windows don't get the winxp look you have the same
 problem if you create the application in c++ or c and uses win32. It's
 caused by an older dll is loaded as default and to get the winxp look
 you have to request it to load the newer dll with a manifest file.
 Welcome to dlls.

I mostly work on *nixen. The unthemed means that I do not have *any* gtk+ libraries installed anywhere so it defaults to the ugly default theme. To me gtk+ does not have the native feel as I never see any application written in it. Like I said, I only use { FLTK2, Qt 3.x, Qt 4.x, Swing, and (forked) Harmonia}. I am sorry if you have trouble reading that. Whenever an application comes with its own (statically linked) gtk+ libs, it will look bad. I do not have any "control panel" to change the look and feel of the gtk+ applications.
 
 If you have problems with the open/save dialogs in SWT either you will
 have the same problem in other native applications because it uses the
 native dialogs or there's a bug in SWT.

Look, this is what I get on Win32: http://johnbokma.com/textpad/select-a-file-dialog.png on Linux: http://www.matusiak.eu/numerodix/blog/wp-content/uploads/20050710- kdefilechooser.png on Java: http://www.dil.univ-mrs.fr/~garreta/docJava/tutorial/figures/uiswing/ components/FileChooserOpenMetal.png You can probably see something that I have started to call 'consistency'. Almost the same buttons and layouts on every platform. I immediately know how it works. The same design has been there since Windows 95, if I recall correctly. This is what many people have learned to live with. Now every time I see a gtk+/swt/dwt application I wonder where the heck that unintuitive terrible piece of cr*p came: http://book.javanb.com/swt-the-standard-widget-toolkit/images/0321256638/ graphics/14fig03.gif Native? It might very well use native binaries on my platform, but the native feel ends there.
Oct 12 2009
prev sibling next sibling parent language_fan <foo bar.com.invalid> writes:
Mon, 12 Oct 2009 13:54:53 -0400, Jeremie Pelletier thusly wrote:

 language_fan wrote:
 I get an entirely different file dialog on win7, and my gnome dialog on
 ubuntu looks nothing like the screenshot you linked.
 
 This is the win7 dialog:
 http://i.msdn.microsoft.com/Dd758094.Libraries_CommonFileDialog%28en-

This is pretty good in my book.
 This is close to what I have on ubuntu:
 http://blogs.gnome.org/mortenw/wp-content/blogs.dir/26/files/2009/02/

Yuck.
 
 I have no Qt or KDE on both my linux installs (ubuntu 9 and a cross
 linux from scratch), the GUI looks smooth and works great, using the
 latest gnome 2.6 libraries.
 
 Why don't you install GTK+? You can't whine about applications built for
 gnome looking ugly if you don't have gtk installed, it can live pretty
 well alongside Qt, I used to do that until i switched to gnome after 2.6
 was released.

I have little desire to embrace inferior technologies. Attempting OOP on C is ridiculous, it should be called POOP. It is a personal choice. Besides FLTK2/Qt work pays well enough. I also have no time for desktop environment wars, tyvm. GTK+ != Gnome, as you well might know. I simply have no reason to install libgtk* since no package depends on them.
Oct 12 2009
prev sibling next sibling parent Jarrett Billingsley <jarrett.billingsley gmail.com> writes:
On Mon, Oct 12, 2009 at 3:23 PM, Ary Borenszweig <ary esperanto.org.ar> wrote:
 Jarrett Billingsley wrote:
 On Mon, Oct 12, 2009 at 3:39 AM, Don <nospam nospam.com> wrote:
 Are you talking about FF 3.5? It's a really poor product. Crashes all the
 time, has some terrible UI misfeatures. I'm really amazed they shipped it
 in
 that condition.

I will gladly join in on the FF3.5 bashing. What a piece. EXTREMELY unresponsive, uses 3-4 times as much memory as FF3, flash videos don't play without hiccuping every five seconds, and it would just go into infinite loops or something and become completely unresponsive. I actually downgraded to 3.0 and it was like a new browser again! :P

Me too. And when clicking a tab sometimes it will make a whole new window out of it. There's even an extension to fix that! :-P

Yes OMG I hate that. Sometimes I don't even have to click the tab, just middle-click-scrolling will do that. I wasn't aware there was even an extension :P
Oct 12 2009
prev sibling parent "Denis Koroskin" <2korden gmail.com> writes:
On Tue, 13 Oct 2009 00:42:51 +0400, Nick Sabalausky <a a.a> wrote:

 "Ary Borenszweig" <ary esperanto.org.ar> wrote in message
 news:havvl7$1tlv$1 digitalmars.com...
 Yeah, we made a game in WPF in the company I work for, using bindings
 (*the* feature of WPF): it was sluggish. From the start I recommended
 doing it in a lower-level language (I recommended D!) but no one  
 listened
 to me. It runs pretty slow with an amazing computer. I don't like WPF  
 (nor
 Siliveright). :-P

Is that related to, or the same as, the win forms library from .NET? Because I've found that to be horribly broken for anyone that uses a light-on-dark color scheme. Certain limitations of it make it impossible to prevent certain things from exhibiting invisible-text-syndrome on such a setup, which inevitably results in an app that's just horribly unprofessional.

No, they are not related in any way. They are two completely different GUI toolkits.
Oct 12 2009
prev sibling next sibling parent Jason House <jason.james.house gmail.com> writes:
Walter Bright Wrote:

 In my discussions with companies about adopting D, the major barrier 
 that comes up over and over isn't Tango vs Phobos, dmd being GPL, 
 debugger support, libraries, bugs, etc., although those are important.
 
 It's the IDE.
 
 They say that the productivity gains of D's improvements are 
 overbalanced by the loss of productivity by moving away from an IDE. And 
 what is it about an IDE that is so productive? Intellisense (Microsoft's 
 word for autocompletion).
 
 So, while I'm not going to be writing an IDE, I figure that dmd can 
 help. dmd already puts out .doc and .di files. How about putting out an 
 xml file giving all the information needed for an IDE to implement 
 autocompletion? There'd be one .xml file generated per .d source file.
 
 The nice thing about an xml file is while D is relatively easy to parse, 
 xml is trivial. Furthermore, an xml format would be fairly robust in the 
 face of changes to D syntax.
 
 What do you think?

Which phases of compilation must finish for the generated information? How error tolerant will this process be? If a statement is incompletely typed, will there be useful output? etc...
Oct 11 2009
prev sibling next sibling parent Leandro Lucarella <llucax gmail.com> writes:
digited, el 10 de octubre a las 22:19 me escribiste:
 Walter Bright ?????:
 The nice thing about an xml file is while D is relatively easy to parse,
 xml is trivial.

Why file? An IDE can call compiler process and get output with info from stdout, that will be much faster, and if IDE will need to store the info, it will, or will not, itself.

And why XML? XML is seriously bloated, I think JSON can be better. With web 2.0 and all, JSON parsers are almost as popular as XML parser, but much easier to implement :) -- Leandro Lucarella (AKA luca) http://llucax.com.ar/ ---------------------------------------------------------------------- GPG Key: 5F5A8D05 (F8CD F9A7 BF00 5431 4145 104C 949E BFB6 5F5A 8D05) ---------------------------------------------------------------------- For a minute there I lost myself, I lost myself. Phew, for a minute there, I lost myself, I lost myself.
Oct 11 2009
prev sibling next sibling parent reply Leandro Lucarella <llucax gmail.com> writes:
Walter Bright, el 10 de octubre a las 18:19 me escribiste:
 In my discussions with companies about adopting D, the major barrier
 that comes up over and over isn't Tango vs Phobos, dmd being GPL,
 debugger support, libraries, bugs, etc., although those are
 important.
 
 It's the IDE.
 
 They say that the productivity gains of D's improvements are
 overbalanced by the loss of productivity by moving away from an IDE.
 And what is it about an IDE that is so productive? Intellisense
 (Microsoft's word for autocompletion).

I think you've got that answer because they are not using D alread. When they start using D, they will start complaining about Phobos vs. Tango, debugger support, librararies, bugs, etc. ;) (maybe not DMD being GPL though, even when I think it's important). -- Leandro Lucarella (AKA luca) http://llucax.com.ar/ ---------------------------------------------------------------------- GPG Key: 5F5A8D05 (F8CD F9A7 BF00 5431 4145 104C 949E BFB6 5F5A 8D05) ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Ah, se va en 1981? Pero por qué? ... Ah, porque ya había sido determinado, entonces quiere decir que pronto vamos a elegir presidente nuevo nosot... Ah, nosotros no? Ah, lo van a elegir en la ... Ah! Quiere que le diga? Muy bien pensado, porque cada vez que lo elegimos nosotros no duran nada! -- Tato vs. Tato (1980, Gobierno de Videla)
Oct 11 2009
parent Walter Bright <newshound1 digitalmars.com> writes:
Leandro Lucarella wrote:
 I think you've got that answer because they are not using D alread. When
 they start using D, they will start complaining about Phobos vs. Tango,
 debugger support, librararies, bugs, etc. ;) (maybe not DMD being GPL
 though, even when I think it's important).

I've heard this from D fans as well, who are unable to get D adopted at work because of the lack of IDE.
Oct 11 2009
prev sibling next sibling parent Leandro Lucarella <llucax gmail.com> writes:
Walter Bright, el 11 de octubre a las 02:38 me escribiste:
 Lutger wrote:
What about file/line/column of the symbol? Is this much work /
hard work to add?

file/line of course, but I don't see a point to column.

See Clang error messages: http://clang.llvm.org/diagnostics.html That's *nice* =) -- Leandro Lucarella (AKA luca) http://llucax.com.ar/ ---------------------------------------------------------------------- GPG Key: 5F5A8D05 (F8CD F9A7 BF00 5431 4145 104C 949E BFB6 5F5A 8D05) ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Ever tried? Ever failed? - Try again! Fail better!
Oct 11 2009
prev sibling next sibling parent Leandro Lucarella <llucax gmail.com> writes:
Walter Bright, el 11 de octubre a las 12:40 me escribiste:
 Leandro Lucarella wrote:
I think you've got that answer because they are not using D alread. When
they start using D, they will start complaining about Phobos vs. Tango,
debugger support, librararies, bugs, etc. ;) (maybe not DMD being GPL
though, even when I think it's important).

I've heard this from D fans as well, who are unable to get D adopted at work because of the lack of IDE.

I can't because of the other issues =( (we don't use an "IDE" at my work, not at least if you don't consider VIM an IDE =) -- Leandro Lucarella (AKA luca) http://llucax.com.ar/ ---------------------------------------------------------------------- GPG Key: 5F5A8D05 (F8CD F9A7 BF00 5431 4145 104C 949E BFB6 5F5A 8D05) ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Soñé que tenia un caballo Que me trataba mejor que vos Tenia tan buena onda con ella Era mi yegua, mucho mas que vos
Oct 11 2009
prev sibling next sibling parent Leandro Lucarella <llucax gmail.com> writes:
Walter Bright, el 11 de octubre a las 14:13 me escribiste:
 Leandro Lucarella wrote:
Walter Bright, el 11 de octubre a las 02:38 me escribiste:
Lutger wrote:
What about file/line/column of the symbol? Is this much work /
hard work to add?


See Clang error messages: http://clang.llvm.org/diagnostics.html That's *nice* =)

I agree, it looks good on paper. In fact, I implemented it in the C and C++ compiler from the beginning (1982 or so). It's still in dmc, try it - it'll print out the error message, followed by the source text of the offending line, followed by a ^ under where things went wrong. Nobody cared. Nobody has ever commented on it - and there have been hundreds of thousands of users of it. No magazine review ever mentioned it. When I mention it to people as "cool, look at this" they never respond. When the conversation is about the quality of error messages, that feature never comes up. So I dropped it for dmd. Nobody noticed. Nobody asked why it was done for dmc, and not for dmd. Nobody asked for it. Nothing. (Until now.) So I am hard pressed to believe this is a worthwhile feature. There is a cost to it in memory consumption and compiler execution time, so it's not quite free.

Well, I don't know the reasons for that. Maybe bad timing? I don't know why people didn't like it in the past. I just know it's a damn good feature. -- Leandro Lucarella (AKA luca) http://llucax.com.ar/ ---------------------------------------------------------------------- GPG Key: 5F5A8D05 (F8CD F9A7 BF00 5431 4145 104C 949E BFB6 5F5A 8D05) ---------------------------------------------------------------------- So you run and you run to catch up with the sun but it's sinking. Racing around to come up behind you again. The sun is the same in a relative way but you're older, Shorter of breath and one day closer to death.
Oct 11 2009
prev sibling next sibling parent language_fan <foo bar.com.invalid> writes:
Sun, 11 Oct 2009 16:07:44 -0300, Leandro Lucarella thusly wrote:

 Walter Bright, el 10 de octubre a las 18:19 me escribiste:
 In my discussions with companies about adopting D, the major barrier
 that comes up over and over isn't Tango vs Phobos, dmd being GPL,
 debugger support, libraries, bugs, etc., although those are important.
 
 It's the IDE.
 
 They say that the productivity gains of D's improvements are
 overbalanced by the loss of productivity by moving away from an IDE.
 And what is it about an IDE that is so productive? Intellisense
 (Microsoft's word for autocompletion).

I think you've got that answer because they are not using D alread. When they start using D, they will start complaining about Phobos vs. Tango, debugger support, librararies, bugs, etc. ;) (maybe not DMD being GPL though, even when I think it's important).

What can I say, the larger the enterprise, the larger the expectations and need for stability. You can try it yourself, any Java 1.4 code from 2003 can be compiled, debugged, profiled etc. nicely with the most recent version of jdk and 3rd party tools. It's also nicely compatible with new code. OTOH take some D 1.0 code from 2003 (e.g. the free dool/dui or aba games code available online) and try to do *something* with it. Basically nothing works. You even have problems with new code as some project depends on a specific svn version of tango trunk. There is a lot to be done before D is ready for large scale enterprise use.
Oct 12 2009
prev sibling next sibling parent reply language_fan <foo bar.com.invalid> writes:
Sat, 10 Oct 2009 18:19:56 -0700, Walter Bright thusly wrote:

 In my discussions with companies about adopting D, the major barrier
 that comes up over and over isn't Tango vs Phobos, dmd being GPL,
 debugger support, libraries, bugs, etc., although those are important.
 
 It's the IDE.
 
 They say that the productivity gains of D's improvements are
 overbalanced by the loss of productivity by moving away from an IDE. And
 what is it about an IDE that is so productive? Intellisense (Microsoft's
 word for autocompletion).
 
 So, while I'm not going to be writing an IDE, I figure that dmd can
 help. dmd already puts out .doc and .di files. How about putting out an
 xml file giving all the information needed for an IDE to implement
 autocompletion? There'd be one .xml file generated per .d source file.
 
 The nice thing about an xml file is while D is relatively easy to parse,
 xml is trivial. Furthermore, an xml format would be fairly robust in the
 face of changes to D syntax.
 
 What do you think?

Another point not mentioned here is that modern IDEs use incremental and interactive compilation model. The compiler should be run as a persistent background process and parsing should happen perhaps on the level of the current scope. Re-compiling a million line project after each key stroke simply makes no sense. Even compiling the current module once per key stroke is too slow. Specifying an intermediate json/xml file format is a huge task considering the amount of language constructs, types etc. available in D. I'm all for good tool support but as many have already mentioned, the support would only bring marginal improvements to small scale tools like vim and emacs. Usually small scale D projects (< 10000 lines of code) are written with those tools (feel free to prove me wrong). These are not the kinds of projects large enterprises would use D for, they use scripting languages for smaller tasks. Thus the overall improvement is minimal. Spending the time on critical compiler bugs on the other hand would help everyone in the community.
Oct 12 2009
next sibling parent reply Walter Bright <newshound1 digitalmars.com> writes:
language_fan wrote:
 Another point not mentioned here is that modern IDEs use incremental and 
 interactive compilation model. The compiler should be run as a persistent 
 background process and parsing should happen perhaps on the level of the 
 current scope. Re-compiling a million line project after each key stroke 
 simply makes no sense.

This would not require recompiling a million lines with every key stroke, unless you are editing a million line module.
 Even compiling the current module once per key 
 stroke is too slow.

As you say, it should be done as a background process.
 Specifying an intermediate json/xml file format is a huge task 
 considering the amount of language constructs, types etc. available in D.

It isn't. It's far less work than ddoc is, for example.
 I'm all for good tool support but as many have already mentioned, the 
 support would only bring marginal improvements to small scale tools like 
 vim and emacs. Usually small scale D projects (< 10000 lines of code) are 
 written with those tools (feel free to prove me wrong). These are not the 
 kinds of projects large enterprises would use D for, they use scripting 
 languages for smaller tasks. Thus the overall improvement is minimal.

I think the bang for the buck on this is large.
 Spending the time on critical compiler bugs on the other hand would help 
 everyone in the community.

That hasn't been shorted, look at the changelog!
Oct 12 2009
next sibling parent reply Andrei Alexandrescu <SeeWebsiteForEmail erdani.org> writes:
Walter Bright wrote:
 language_fan wrote:
 Another point not mentioned here is that modern IDEs use incremental 
 and interactive compilation model. The compiler should be run as a 
 persistent background process and parsing should happen perhaps on the 
 level of the current scope. Re-compiling a million line project after 
 each key stroke simply makes no sense.

This would not require recompiling a million lines with every key stroke, unless you are editing a million line module.
 Even compiling the current module once per key stroke is too slow.

As you say, it should be done as a background process.
 Specifying an intermediate json/xml file format is a huge task 
 considering the amount of language constructs, types etc. available in D.

It isn't. It's far less work than ddoc is, for example.
 I'm all for good tool support but as many have already mentioned, the 
 support would only bring marginal improvements to small scale tools 
 like vim and emacs. Usually small scale D projects (< 10000 lines of 
 code) are written with those tools (feel free to prove me wrong). 
 These are not the kinds of projects large enterprises would use D for, 
 they use scripting languages for smaller tasks. Thus the overall 
 improvement is minimal.

I think the bang for the buck on this is large.

For each snippet of code that doesn't currently compile, I generate a red warning in the TDPL draft. Currently there are 28 such red warnings, and each may be arbitrarily difficult to fix. There are other issues that we know need to be done as soon as yesterday. IMHO it would be frivolous to spend time on anything else but the 28 bugs. This XML/JSON generation is like combing one's hair before leaving the burning house. Just run! (I'm not saying I don't like combed hair or XML/JSON parsing, but the latter is absolutely nothing you need to work on now.) Please understand that TDPL is on a crash course and we can't have a book without a language (I'm also assuming we can't have a language without a book). Walter, please avoid all distractions and make bringing D in sync with the book your sole preoccupation. I am working *extremely* hard on the book, and I wish I were seeing the same level of commitment in you. Andrei
Oct 12 2009
next sibling parent Andrei Alexandrescu <SeeWebsiteForEmail erdani.org> writes:
Andrei Alexandrescu wrote:
 Walter Bright wrote:
 language_fan wrote:
 Another point not mentioned here is that modern IDEs use incremental 
 and interactive compilation model. The compiler should be run as a 
 persistent background process and parsing should happen perhaps on 
 the level of the current scope. Re-compiling a million line project 
 after each key stroke simply makes no sense.

This would not require recompiling a million lines with every key stroke, unless you are editing a million line module.
 Even compiling the current module once per key stroke is too slow.

As you say, it should be done as a background process.
 Specifying an intermediate json/xml file format is a huge task 
 considering the amount of language constructs, types etc. available 
 in D.

It isn't. It's far less work than ddoc is, for example.
 I'm all for good tool support but as many have already mentioned, the 
 support would only bring marginal improvements to small scale tools 
 like vim and emacs. Usually small scale D projects (< 10000 lines of 
 code) are written with those tools (feel free to prove me wrong). 
 These are not the kinds of projects large enterprises would use D 
 for, they use scripting languages for smaller tasks. Thus the overall 
 improvement is minimal.

I think the bang for the buck on this is large.

For each snippet of code that doesn't currently compile, I generate a red warning in the TDPL draft. Currently there are 28 such red warnings, and each may be arbitrarily difficult to fix. There are other issues that we know need to be done as soon as yesterday. IMHO it would be frivolous to spend time on anything else but the 28 bugs. This XML/JSON generation is like combing one's hair before leaving the burning house. Just run! (I'm not saying I don't like combed hair or XML/JSON parsing, but the latter is absolutely nothing you need to work on now.) Please understand that TDPL is on a crash course and we can't have a book without a language (I'm also assuming we can't have a language without a book). Walter, please avoid all distractions and make bringing D in sync with the book your sole preoccupation. I am working *extremely* hard on the book, and I wish I were seeing the same level of commitment in you. Andrei

I ammend the above: s/commitment/focus/. Of course Walter is motivate and committed more than anyone else to make D successful, but it's time to force ourselves to absolutely focus on the important _and_ urgent matters. Andrei
Oct 12 2009
prev sibling parent Walter Bright <newshound1 digitalmars.com> writes:
Jarrett Billingsley wrote:
 I'm out of here.

Andrei is addressing one of the critical shortcomings of D - lack of a comprehensive book. So while he has a large ego (don't we all!) I actually enjoy working with people who have large egos, and Andrei gets things done. I've also found that while some people I only know from online dealings that I found infuriating, when I meet the person in 3D land things are very different, and they're very engaging and fun to work with. I suppose we really need another D conference.
Oct 12 2009
prev sibling parent reply Walter Bright <newshound1 digitalmars.com> writes:
Bill Baxter wrote:
 But it doesn't sound to me like it will be that much use to serious IDEs.

Possibly not, but for lightweight IDEs I think it would be of much use. It would also make things very accessible to Emacs and Vim, two very widely used programmers' editors. (One thing I like about Vim is I can run it remotely via putty. A graphical gui IDE is impractical to use remotely, and yes, I've tried remote desktops. Unusable.)
Oct 12 2009
next sibling parent reply Yigal Chripun <yigal100 gmail.com> writes:
On 12/10/2009 23:00, Walter Bright wrote:
 Bill Baxter wrote:
 But it doesn't sound to me like it will be that much use to serious IDEs.

Possibly not, but for lightweight IDEs I think it would be of much use. It would also make things very accessible to Emacs and Vim, two very widely used programmers' editors. (One thing I like about Vim is I can run it remotely via putty. A graphical gui IDE is impractical to use remotely, and yes, I've tried remote desktops. Unusable.)

I agree with Bill's post. I can't see any benefir for IDEs but a better documentation tool based on this would be great. regarding working on a remote machine: you can mount a remote file system through ssh and work localy on that remoted filesystem. eclipse provides a similar concept with a plugin (search for RSE or TM for eclipse) in addition eclipse provides better integration with the remote machine: executing remote commands straight from the GUI, remote debugging integration, etc.. in the latest version the CDT integration was improved a lot. it still isn't perfect (the C++ indexer needs more work) but I think by the next release they'll fix the remaining issues.
Oct 12 2009
next sibling parent reply Andrei Alexandrescu <SeeWebsiteForEmail erdani.org> writes:
Adam D. Ruppe wrote:
 On Tue, Oct 13, 2009 at 12:20:01AM +0200, Yigal Chripun wrote:
 regarding working on a remote machine:
 you can mount a remote file system through ssh and work localy on that 
 remoted filesystem.

Eh, sshfs leaves a lot to be desired. There is a noticeable lag when performing basic operations on it - it really kills the flow when doing a rapid edit/compile loop. It sounds cool on paper, but in practice is rather disappointing.

I've had positive results with sshfs. Sure, it could probably stand a lot of improvements, but overall my experience has been good. The Phobos remote build on the machine you donated access to (thanks!) uses sshfs. One cool thing is combining sshfs with autofs. That way the connection is automatically made when you first open a dir. For example, if I write: ls /ssh/erdani.com/ an sshfs session is automatically opened to erdani.com. What are the issues that you encountered? My problems invariably involve suspending the laptop to RAM or changing wireless connections, to then find sshfs blocked. I need to "killall ssh" and then whenever I resume reestablish connection(s). This is a considerable, but not major, annoyance. Andrei
Oct 12 2009
next sibling parent Andrei Alexandrescu <SeeWebsiteForEmail erdani.org> writes:
Adam D. Ruppe wrote:
 The sshfs lag isn't much, but it adds up quickly when doing several
 small changes. I find that if any given task takes hours, I can be very
 patient, but if it takes milliseconds, I get annoyed easily!

I agree. I coquetted with the idea of passing sshfs the option of doing writing in background, but I'm too scared :o). Andrei
Oct 15 2009
prev sibling parent Chris Nicholson-Sauls <ibisbasenji gmail.com> writes:
Andrei Alexandrescu wrote:
 One cool thing is combining sshfs with autofs.

A cool thing I'd seriously never thought of. Time to autofs half my /mnt... -- Chris Nicholson-Sauls
Oct 16 2009
prev sibling next sibling parent reply Walter Bright <newshound1 digitalmars.com> writes:
Yigal Chripun wrote:
 regarding working on a remote machine:
 you can mount a remote file system through ssh and work localy on that 
 remoted filesystem.

I do that sometimes, but it's a problem when trying to run the compiler/debugger, as they need to run on the remote machine, not just locally <g>. Also, mounting a remote filesystem fails on Windows. I know, that really sux. At least putty works. (10 years ago, I wired up every room in the house with two RG6 cables and two Cat5 cables while it was under construction. Did it myself because the electrical contractor had no idea how to handle high frequency wires, I had to rip all his stuff out and do it over. I had no use for it at the time. I'm sure glad now it was done, everything I have seems to want to plug in to it! Anyhow, I have several machines with different OSs on them on the lan, and ssh to run them from a central location.)
Oct 12 2009
next sibling parent reply Yigal Chripun <yigal100 gmail.com> writes:
On 13/10/2009 07:07, Walter Bright wrote:
 Yigal Chripun wrote:
 regarding working on a remote machine:
 you can mount a remote file system through ssh and work localy on that
 remoted filesystem.

I do that sometimes, but it's a problem when trying to run the compiler/debugger, as they need to run on the remote machine, not just locally <g>.

Eclipse has integration for that. it can execute remote commands and has remote debugging - the local eclipse debugger UI speaks with a remote gdb session. and if you really prefer command-line, you can always use the terminal view.
 Also, mounting a remote filesystem fails on Windows. I know, that really
 sux. At least putty works.

this requires a 3rd party tool on windows. iirc, WebDrive is free, and for 30$ you can get sftpDrive.
 (10 years ago, I wired up every room in the house with two RG6 cables
 and two Cat5 cables while it was under construction. Did it myself
 because the electrical contractor had no idea how to handle high
 frequency wires, I had to rip all his stuff out and do it over. I had no
 use for it at the time. I'm sure glad now it was done, everything I have
 seems to want to plug in to it! Anyhow, I have several machines with
 different OSs on them on the lan, and ssh to run them from a central
 location.)

Oct 12 2009
parent reply BCS <none anon.com> writes:
Hello Yigal,

 On 13/10/2009 07:07, Walter Bright wrote:
 
 Yigal Chripun wrote:
 
 regarding working on a remote machine:
 you can mount a remote file system through ssh and work localy on
 that
 remoted filesystem.

compiler/debugger, as they need to run on the remote machine, not just locally <g>.

has remote debugging - the local eclipse debugger UI speaks with a remote gdb session. and if you really prefer command-line, you can always use the terminal view.

Darn I so want this. Do you have links? Does the GDB thing work from from a Win client and a running GDB on Linux?
Oct 13 2009
parent Yigal Chripun <yigal100 gmail.com> writes:
On 14/10/2009 03:54, BCS wrote:
 Hello Yigal,

 On 13/10/2009 07:07, Walter Bright wrote:

 Yigal Chripun wrote:

 regarding working on a remote machine:
 you can mount a remote file system through ssh and work localy on
 that
 remoted filesystem.

compiler/debugger, as they need to run on the remote machine, not just locally <g>.

has remote debugging - the local eclipse debugger UI speaks with a remote gdb session. and if you really prefer command-line, you can always use the terminal view.

Darn I so want this. Do you have links? Does the GDB thing work from from a Win client and a running GDB on Linux?

http://www.eclipse.org/dsdp/tm/
Oct 13 2009
prev sibling parent Walter Bright <newshound1 digitalmars.com> writes:
language_fan wrote:
 Lucky you. Couple of friends of mine chose the 'data cabling' option from 
 the electrical contractor for their new homes (maybe 2-3 years ago) when 
 they were under construction. The rails on the wall were equipped with 
 RJ11 connectors! Totally useless for LAN, but ok for phone cables and 
 thus xDSL.

What my electrical contractor did was install Cat 3, daisy chain them together, run them through the same holes as the AC wiring, have them touching the heating ducts, sharp bends, cable so cheap the insulation was already cracking on it, etc. He did everything wrong. But that probably wouldn't be a problem today.
 Another note -- I would use virtualization these days when 
 several OSs are needed.

I tried that and gave up on it: 1. virtual box wouldn't work, until I downloaded the sun version 2. upgrading Ubuntu cause them to all cease functioning
Oct 13 2009
prev sibling next sibling parent reply Walter Bright <newshound1 digitalmars.com> writes:
Bill Baxter wrote:
 That could be true, but you said the thing that prompted this idea was
 enterprise-y customers looking for an enterprise-y IDE.  Vim ain't on
 that roster.

This thread makes it fairly clear that this idea won't fill the bill for a full featured IDE. But I think supporting a lightweight one is still getting us closer.
Oct 12 2009
parent Jeremie Pelletier <jeremiep gmail.com> writes:
Walter Bright wrote:
 Bill Baxter wrote:
 That could be true, but you said the thing that prompted this idea was
 enterprise-y customers looking for an enterprise-y IDE.  Vim ain't on
 that roster.

This thread makes it fairly clear that this idea won't fill the bill for a full featured IDE. But I think supporting a lightweight one is still getting us closer.

I completely agree, nobody will code a monster IDE like Eclipse or Visual Studio dedicated to D anytime soon. I have only respect for Descent, I use it on linux and it is really great. But Eclipse is killing me, there is no reason for an IDE to be that heavy, slow and unresponsive. How come a database server can pull off any data query from a multi-gigabyte database on disk in half a millisecond yet Eclipse can't seem to feel responsive when working with less than a hundred megabytes in system memory. (On that note, D needs a b-tree module among others :x) I really feel we need a dedicated D IDE to promote the language, and such an IDE needs to start somewhere, most only do syntax highlighting so far, which is trivial to implement. A compiler interface to at least get semantics information from the source files is therefore a *big* plus in that direction. XML output can also be used in so many different ways, for documentation, bindings, analysis and more. And JSON output can be used directly from any language with a very lightweight parser. Besides, this doesn't mean Walter is going to put everything on hold to implement this feature, I think he only wanted to get feedback on an idea he had so when he gets time to implement it, he knows what the community wants. Jeremie
Oct 13 2009
prev sibling parent Yigal Chripun <yigal100 gmail.com> writes:
On 13/10/2009 01:55, Adam D. Ruppe wrote:
 On Tue, Oct 13, 2009 at 12:20:01AM +0200, Yigal Chripun wrote:
 regarding working on a remote machine:
 you can mount a remote file system through ssh and work localy on that
 remoted filesystem.

Eh, sshfs leaves a lot to be desired. There is a noticeable lag when performing basic operations on it - it really kills the flow when doing a rapid edit/compile loop. It sounds cool on paper, but in practice is rather disappointing.

locally and keeps things synced. this removes any lag while editing the file. I use this at work and it's quite good.
Oct 12 2009
prev sibling parent reply "Nick Sabalausky" <a a.a> writes:
"Walter Bright" <newshound1 digitalmars.com> wrote in message 
news:hb05cv$2bru$1 digitalmars.com...
 Bill Baxter wrote:
 But it doesn't sound to me like it will be that much use to serious IDEs.

Possibly not, but for lightweight IDEs I think it would be of much use. It would also make things very accessible to Emacs and Vim, two very widely used programmers' editors. (One thing I like about Vim is I can run it remotely via putty. A graphical gui IDE is impractical to use remotely, and yes, I've tried remote desktops. Unusable.)

A different branch of the this topic started taking about (or rather, bashing on) web-apps-being-used-as-desktop-apps, and I mentioned I felt that was ass-backwards and that the focus should be the other way around: making desktop apps work on the web. What you say here is actually hinting at what I meant: What we need is a proper GUI equivalent to something like TTY or telnet. Not remote desktops, which really just act like streaming video, but something that'll say "Hey client, host here, talking through something much more appropriate than XML/HTTP, I want a button that says 'Ok' at (7,14) with size (50,20) on the form 'FooForm', and if the user wants a skin, may I suggest (but not insist) the 'buttonSkinFoo' that I already sent you earlier, plus I need a user-editable textbox over here...etc." (In fact, I think X11 already provides something like this in a slightly more low-level form) I actually tried doing code-editing through remote desktop a few weeks ago and noticed just how poorly-suited (not to mention unusable) the whole approach was for anything more than clicking around on a few buttons. A fully-loaded Eclipse is vastly more responsive! And why? The client system I was using was perfectly capable of handling a text-box on it's own, and I really didn't need everything to look exactly as it does on the client machine. Video game developers don't make multiplayer games by sending a compressed video stream of the fully-rendered frame - they know that would be unusable. Instead, they just send the minimum higher-level information that's actually needed, like "PlayerA changed direction 72 degrees" (over-simplification, of course). And they send it to a client that'll never insist on crap like interpreted JS or open-for-interpretation standards. And when there's a technology that's inadequate for their needs, like TCP, they make a proper replacement instead of hacking in a half-assed "solution" on top of the offender, TCP. And it works great even though those programs have visuals that are *far* more complex than a typical GUI app. So why can't a windowing toolkit be extended to do the same? And do so *without* building it on top such warped, crumbling, mis-engineered foundations as (X)HTML, Ajax, etc.?
Oct 12 2009
next sibling parent "Nick Sabalausky" <a a.a> writes:
"Adam D. Ruppe" <destructionator gmail.com> wrote in message 
news:mailman.179.1255391198.20261.digitalmars-d puremagic.com...
 My DWS project aims to work up on a widget level. [big snip]

Excellent! Sounds exactly like what I had in mind. I'll definately want to keep an eye on this. Any webpage or svn or anything yet? Couple questions: Have you given any thought to security? The stuff about local file/etc access sounds great, but it also makes me think a little of Adobe's FLEX (but with a much more professional appearance and sensible language) which is notorious for, first, opening the door for no-install cross-platform malware and then not caring one whit about the fact that they've done so (sort of like how they don't care about the evils of flash super-cookies, but I digress...). How do you have the client-side working from the perspective of a new user? Ie, Do they still need to install each app (or at least each app's client) individually, or is it just a one-time install of the DWS library? If the latter, how do they find/launch a remote program? I ask because one of the things that web-app fans like about web-apps is that they're "no-install", at least beyond the installation of the platform (ie, browser) itself. But I've always felt there's no technical reason why it shouldn't be possible to have a link to, for instance, "dws://www.somedomain.com/apps/someGUIApp?cmdlineparams" and have that launch the client's remote-GUI toolkit on that "someGUIApp".
Oct 12 2009
prev sibling next sibling parent "Adam D. Ruppe" <destructionator gmail.com> writes:
On Mon, Oct 12, 2009 at 09:06:38PM -0400, Nick Sabalausky wrote:
 Excellent! Sounds exactly like what I had in mind. I'll definately want to 
 keep an eye on this. Any webpage or svn or anything yet?

Not yet. I've discussed it on random forums (in various states of development) but haven't written up anything cohesive at all. I'd tar up my code as it is right now, but it is a huge mess with outdated notes and my real passwords just hardcoded in there.... it isn't suitable to go public at all, sadly. I'll try to fit in a few hours to clean it up over the weekend though.
 Have you given any thought to security? 

A little bit, but not a lot. I was thinking the viewer could be as locked down as it wants*, but I've just been considering it an implementation detail so far. * Any app should be able to gracefully handle permission denied errors on file writing, so it shouldn't be hard to code up. The viewer could also run as a restricted user, using the operating system's protections to keep it in check.
 How do you have the client-side working from the perspective of a new user? 
 Ie, Do they still need to install each app (or at least each app's client) 
 individually, or is it just a one-time install of the DWS library?

It is just a one time install of the viewer, if you want to run remote programs. If you want to run programs on your local box, you need to get the library (well, not really, since it is statically linked, but conceptually) and the app manager, which runs in the background. The manager seems like an unnecessary step, but it abstracts the app and the viewer from each other. The app connects to the manager on localhost and gives it the instructions to forward to the viewer. Next, the viewer also connects to the manager. The manager presents it with a list of active tasks. The viewer selects a task to attach, and then the manager shoots its current state down to the viewer, allowing the user to use the program. If the viewer crashes, no big deal - just restart it and pick up where you left off. But anyway, from the end user perspective, he just needs to grab the viewer and connect to the right server.
 If the 
 latter, how do they find/launch a remote program? I ask because one of the 
 things that web-app fans like about web-apps is that they're "no-install", 
 at least beyond the installation of the platform (ie, browser) itself. But 
 I've always felt there's no technical reason why it shouldn't be possible to 
 have a link to, for instance, 
 "dws://www.somedomain.com/apps/someGUIApp?cmdlineparams" and have that 
 launch the client's remote-GUI toolkit on that "someGUIApp".
 

Exactly. The way my current implementation works is you just run the viewer and connect it to the server, using plain old TCP (tunneled over SSH for auth and encryption right now, but that might change) The process looks something like this:
 Connect

The user can view this in a variety of ways. My Qt implementation gives a list widget, which the user double clicks the one he wants.
 Attach app #1

The user now sees the program and interacts with it. Or, he can launch a new program -
 Exec app "/app/notepad"
 CreateWindow, .....

While my implementation currently uses a GUI list, it could just as well be a command line or a URL. Eventually, I'd like to make it Just Work on hyperlinks - it should be easy enough to rig something up so it downloads the viewer and connects all transparently to the user. -- Adam D. Ruppe http://arsdnet.net
Oct 12 2009
prev sibling next sibling parent Nick B <nickB gmail.com> writes:
Nick Sabalausky wrote:
 "Walter Bright" <newshound1 digitalmars.com> wrote in message 
 news:hb05cv$2bru$1 digitalmars.com...
 Bill Baxter wrote:
 But it doesn't sound to me like it will be that much use to serious IDEs.

would also make things very accessible to Emacs and Vim, two very widely used programmers' editors. (One thing I like about Vim is I can run it remotely via putty. A graphical gui IDE is impractical to use remotely, and yes, I've tried remote desktops. Unusable.)

A different branch of the this topic started taking about (or rather, bashing on) web-apps-being-used-as-desktop-apps, and I mentioned I felt that was ass-backwards and that the focus should be the other way around: making desktop apps work on the web. What you say here is actually hinting at what I meant: What we need is a proper GUI equivalent to something like TTY or telnet. Not remote desktops, which really just act like streaming video, but something that'll say "Hey client, host here, talking through something much more appropriate than XML/HTTP, I want a button that says 'Ok' at (7,14) with size (50,20) on the form 'FooForm', and if the user wants a skin, may I suggest (but not insist) the 'buttonSkinFoo' that I already sent you earlier, plus I need a user-editable textbox over here...etc." (In fact, I think X11 already provides something like this in a slightly more low-level form)

 
 Video game developers don't make multiplayer games by sending a compressed 
 video stream of the fully-rendered frame - they know that would be unusable. 
 Instead, they just send the minimum higher-level information that's actually 
 needed, like "PlayerA changed direction 72 degrees" (over-simplification, of 
 course). And they send it to a client that'll never insist on crap like 
 interpreted JS or open-for-interpretation standards. And when there's a 
 technology that's inadequate for their needs, like TCP, they make a proper 
 replacement instead of hacking in a half-assed "solution" on top of the 
 offender, TCP. And it works great even though those programs have visuals 
 that are *far* more complex than a typical GUI app. So why can't a windowing 
 toolkit be extended to do the same? And do so *without* building it on top 
 such warped, crumbling, mis-engineered foundations as (X)HTML, Ajax, etc.?

It sounds like you are talking about Immediate Mode Graphical User Interface ? Have you checked out Hybrid (IMGUI) developed by team0xf ? See http://hybrid.team0xf.com/wiki/ Nick B
Oct 12 2009
prev sibling next sibling parent reply David Gileadi <foo bar.com> writes:
Nick Sabalausky wrote:
 Video game developers don't make multiplayer games by sending a compressed 
 video stream of the fully-rendered frame - they know that would be unusable. 
 Instead, they just send the minimum higher-level information that's actually 
 needed, like "PlayerA changed direction 72 degrees" (over-simplification, of 
 course). And they send it to a client that'll never insist on crap like 
 interpreted JS or open-for-interpretation standards. And when there's a 
 technology that's inadequate for their needs, like TCP, they make a proper 
 replacement instead of hacking in a half-assed "solution" on top of the 
 offender, TCP. And it works great even though those programs have visuals 
 that are *far* more complex than a typical GUI app. So why can't a windowing 
 toolkit be extended to do the same? And do so *without* building it on top 
 such warped, crumbling, mis-engineered foundations as (X)HTML, Ajax, etc.?

This is generally true, although see OnLive (http://www.onlive.com/). I hear it works better than you'd expect, but don't have much interest in actually trying it.
Oct 13 2009
parent "Nick Sabalausky" <a a.a> writes:
"David Gileadi" <foo bar.com> wrote in message 
news:hb24km$pm8$1 digitalmars.com...
 Nick Sabalausky wrote:
 Video game developers don't make multiplayer games by sending a 
 compressed video stream of the fully-rendered frame - they know that 
 would be unusable. Instead, they just send the minimum higher-level 
 information that's actually needed, like "PlayerA changed direction 72 
 degrees" (over-simplification, of course). And they send it to a client 
 that'll never insist on crap like interpreted JS or 
 open-for-interpretation standards. And when there's a technology that's 
 inadequate for their needs, like TCP, they make a proper replacement 
 instead of hacking in a half-assed "solution" on top of the offender, 
 TCP. And it works great even though those programs have visuals that are 
 *far* more complex than a typical GUI app. So why can't a windowing 
 toolkit be extended to do the same? And do so *without* building it on 
 top such warped, crumbling, mis-engineered foundations as (X)HTML, Ajax, 
 etc.?

This is generally true, although see OnLive (http://www.onlive.com/). I hear it works better than you'd expect, but don't have much interest in actually trying it.

Yea, I've heard of that. I'm extremely skeptical though. Even at *absolute* best, I still can't imagine it having less lag than one of those laggy HDTVs, which I already consider entirely inadequate for gaming. Plus they'd essentially have to have a whole high-end gaming rig (plus all the higher-end-than-usual video-capture/compression and network needs) for each simultaneous user, which I'd imagine would either make the subscription fee absurdly high, lead to 90's-AOL-style too-many-connection issues, or send them right into bankruptcy. It's just unnecessary bandwidth/latency bloat.
Oct 13 2009
prev sibling next sibling parent "Nick Sabalausky" <a a.a> writes:
"language_fan" <foo bar.com.invalid> wrote in message 
news:hb2ov1$1jd8$3 digitalmars.com...
 Mon, 12 Oct 2009 19:09:11 -0400, Nick Sabalausky thusly wrote:
 A different branch of the this topic started taking about (or rather,
 bashing on) web-apps-being-used-as-desktop-apps, and I mentioned I felt
 that was ass-backwards and that the focus should be the other way
 around: making desktop apps work on the web.

 And do so *without* building it on
 top such warped, crumbling, mis-engineered foundations as (X)HTML, Ajax,
 etc.?

You have probably lived under a rock these days. This is the way the world is moving. If something can be made Web 2.0 compatible, it is also what will happen. A new platform might come up in 201x or 202x, but nowadays the best we have got is Web 2.0. Ever used twitter, facebook, google wave (or any google's services) etc. ? Large part of the online enterprises have already jumped on the wagon, not only early adopters. Modern browsers such as opera 10, firefox 3.5, safari, and chrome already support the latest standards.

You're misunderstanding me. All of that is stuff that is either A. made for the web using web technologies and then brought to the desktop, still using those god-awful web technologies (twitter, facebook, anything flex), or B. started on the desktop and then completely reimplemented for the web using those same web technologies (google's stuff). But what I'm talking about is taking desktop apps made using nice solid desktop app technologies and making them internet-accessible without ever even touching crap like DHTML, Flash, or even HTTP.
Oct 13 2009
prev sibling next sibling parent "Nick Sabalausky" <a a.a> writes:
"Adam D. Ruppe" <destructionator gmail.com> wrote in message 
news:mailman.179.1255391198.20261.digitalmars-d puremagic.com...
 My DWS project aims to work up on a widget level. It isn't quite as 
 visually
 fancy as what you are describing (though it could grow into it later), but
 works on a high enough level of abstraction to be fast - and cross 
 platform.

Here's another thought I've had that I forgot to mention before. Just tossing it out there, don't know if you've looked into it or not: Instead of (or, better yet, in addition to) a special network-GUI toolkit, what about a server (kind of like a modified version of remote desktop) that actually queries the OS to find out about all the GUIs running on the system, and details about all their controls, relays that info to the client to reproduce, and accepts input back from the client like a softwareKVM would? It probably wouldn't work quite as well as a special network-GUI toolkit (it would probably have to detect and handle Win32/GTK/Delphi apps seperately, it probably wouldn't be able to do everything 100%, and it wouldn't be able to do any of the "smart" client tricks you have up your sleeve), but it would allow for at least some basic compatibility with apps that weren't specifically coded for a special network-GUI toolkit. Regarding the technical feasability of gaining information on all the controls of the running processes, I could swear I've seen some Windows program (some dev tool IIRC) that was able to detect that stuff from Win32 and Delphi apps, although I have no recoloction what what in the world that program was... I have no idea as to the feasability on Mac or Unix.
Oct 13 2009
prev sibling parent reply "Adam D. Ruppe" <destructionator gmail.com> writes:
On Mon, Oct 12, 2009 at 09:06:38PM -0400, Nick Sabalausky wrote:
 Excellent! Sounds exactly like what I had in mind. I'll definately want to 
 keep an eye on this. Any webpage or svn or anything yet?

I wrote up some of a webpage for it over the weekend: http://arsdnet.net/dws/ I haven't had a chance to clean up my code yet, so it isn't posted, but there's some overview text there, including some implementation details that I haven't discussed yet here, but the document still has a long way to go. But there it is, becoming more organized than anything I've written on it before. Thanks for your interest and to the rest of the group for letting me go off topic like this! -- Adam D. Ruppe http://arsdnet.net
Oct 18 2009
parent reply "Nick Sabalausky" <a a.a> writes:
"Adam D. Ruppe" <destructionator gmail.com> wrote in message 
news:mailman.208.1255923114.20261.digitalmars-d puremagic.com...
 On Mon, Oct 12, 2009 at 09:06:38PM -0400, Nick Sabalausky wrote:
 Excellent! Sounds exactly like what I had in mind. I'll definately want 
 to
 keep an eye on this. Any webpage or svn or anything yet?

I wrote up some of a webpage for it over the weekend: http://arsdnet.net/dws/ I haven't had a chance to clean up my code yet, so it isn't posted, but there's some overview text there, including some implementation details that I haven't discussed yet here, but the document still has a long way to go. But there it is, becoming more organized than anything I've written on it before.

Great!
 Thanks for your interest and to the rest of the group for letting me
 go off topic like this!

The offtopics are some of the most interesting bits!
Oct 20 2009
parent reply Nick B <nickB gmail.com> writes:
Nick Sabalausky wrote:
 "Adam D. Ruppe" <destructionator gmail.com> wrote in message 
 news:mailman.208.1255923114.20261.digitalmars-d puremagic.com...
 On Mon, Oct 12, 2009 at 09:06:38PM -0400, Nick Sabalausky wrote:
 Excellent! Sounds exactly like what I had in mind. I'll definately want 
 to
 keep an eye on this. Any webpage or svn or anything yet?

http://arsdnet.net/dws/ I haven't had a chance to clean up my code yet, so it isn't posted, but there's some overview text there, including some implementation details that I haven't discussed yet here, but the document still has a long way to go. But there it is, becoming more organized than anything I've written on it before.


Adam. What you written at your web site is a very interesting read. Re your use of a binary protocol. Perhaps instead of re-inventing the wheel, you may want to look at what Google has done with the design of their Google Protocol Buffers, which also implements a very fast binary protocol. See here for a overview: http://code.google.com/apis/protocolbuffers/docs/overview.html It is also worthwhile reading the section called "A bit of history". Note that there is also D implementation. http://256.makerslocal.org/wiki/index.php/ProtocolBuffer I don't know how current this is, though. One more point. What, if any, library to you plan to use ? cheers Nick B
Oct 20 2009
parent Adam D. Ruppe <destructionator gmail.com> writes:
On 10/20/09, Nick B <nickB gmail.com> wrote:
 Re your use of a binary protocol.

 Perhaps instead of re-inventing the wheel,

Eh, my code is already written and works. One of the advantages to my code generator reading a C like syntax is that I might be able to fully automate porting some existing APIs down the wire - I'm particularly looking at OpenGL, or at least a subset of it, to work with ease. Another one is porting my generator to a new language is easy - I already know the code and it is fairly simple anyway. Anyway, quickly skimming through the google page, their system isn't bad (Coincidentally, it and I encode unsigned ints and strings in exactly the same way! Cool.), but I don't think there's much to gain by me switching to it. Though, their signed varint algorithm is pretty elegant; I might have to use that. And it reminds me that I didn't even consider optional arguments on functions. Trivial to implement though, even compatible with my current protocol: if message length is shorter than what you expect, use default values for the rest of the arguments. This means they'd have to be at the end, but you expect that from C like functions anyway.
 It is also worthwhile reading the section called "A bit of history".

I thought about future compatibility, which is why my protocol has a length field on every message. If you read the length and the function number and find it isn't something you know, you can simply skip past the whole message and carry on. The ugliness might be that future functions deprecate old functions... if this took off and was widely used, it might end up looking like Win32 in 10 years (CreateWindow() nope, CreateWindowEx()!), but I'm ok with that.
 One more point. What, if any, library to you plan to use ?

The D side is all custom code (I've written various libraries and helper tools over the years for myself - the big one used here is a network manager thing that handles incoming connections and output buffering) and Phobos - nothing third party there. I'm using D2, but there's nothing preventing it from being backported to D1 at some point. I actually want to do a DMDScript port that speaks it too, but that's way down the line. For the viewer, my current implementation is C++ with Qt. I'd like to actually do various viewers, including ones with less fat dependencies (asking users to download Qt just to run it is a bit heavy), but for now, I just wanted something I could start using immediately without too much trouble for me. Qt on C++ works pretty well across platforms, and I already know how to use it, so it was an easy choice for early stages.
 cheers
 Nick B

Thanks! -Adam
Oct 20 2009
prev sibling next sibling parent Bill Baxter <wbaxter gmail.com> writes:
On Mon, Oct 12, 2009 at 11:32 AM, Walter Bright
<newshound1 digitalmars.com> wrote:

 Specifying an intermediate json/xml file format is a huge task considering
 the amount of language constructs, types etc. available in D.

It isn't. It's far less work than ddoc is, for example.
 I'm all for good tool support but as many have already mentioned, the
 support would only bring marginal improvements to small scale tools like vim
 and emacs. Usually small scale D projects (< 10000 lines of code) are
 written with those tools (feel free to prove me wrong). These are not the
 kinds of projects large enterprises would use D for, they use scripting
 languages for smaller tasks. Thus the overall improvement is minimal.

I think the bang for the buck on this is large.

Even if this turns out to be useless for IDEs, it'll still be good for creating external documentation generators that go beyond what DDoc is capable of providing. I think the subject of DDoc's limitations has come up more than once here. Put in another light, it sounds like this would basically be the D equivalent of GCC-XML. Which I think has been found to have many interesting uses. For instance Gregor used GCC-XML to put together a D bindings generator for C code. With this XML/JSON output, someone could do similar and write a <your language here> bindings generator for D code. That could be handy if you want to call your D code from C or C# or whatever. But it doesn't sound to me like it will be that much use to serious IDEs. --bb
Oct 12 2009
prev sibling next sibling parent Jarrett Billingsley <jarrett.billingsley gmail.com> writes:
On Mon, Oct 12, 2009 at 3:31 PM, Andrei Alexandrescu
<SeeWebsiteForEmail erdani.org> wrote:

 Walter, please avoid all distractions and make bringing D in sync with the
 book your sole preoccupation. I am working *extremely* hard on the book, and
 I wish I were seeing the same level of commitment in you.

You're writing a book about a language that doesn't exist and then complaining that Walter isn't writing it for you? Wow. Just wow. I'm out of here.
Oct 12 2009
prev sibling next sibling parent Bill Baxter <wbaxter gmail.com> writes:
On Mon, Oct 12, 2009 at 3:20 PM, Yigal Chripun <yigal100 gmail.com> wrote:
 On 12/10/2009 23:00, Walter Bright wrote:
 Bill Baxter wrote:
 But it doesn't sound to me like it will be that much use to serious IDEs.

Possibly not, but for lightweight IDEs I think it would be of much use. It would also make things very accessible to Emacs and Vim, two very widely used programmers' editors.


That could be true, but you said the thing that prompted this idea was enterprise-y customers looking for an enterprise-y IDE. Vim ain't on that roster. --bb
Oct 12 2009
prev sibling next sibling parent "Adam D. Ruppe" <destructionator gmail.com> writes:
On Mon, Oct 12, 2009 at 07:09:11PM -0400, Nick Sabalausky wrote:
 What you say here is actually hinting at what I meant: What we need is a 
 proper GUI equivalent to something like TTY or telnet. Not remote desktops, 
 which really just act like streaming video, but something that'll say "Hey 
 client, host here, talking through something much more appropriate than 
 XML/HTTP, I want a button that says 'Ok' at (7,14) with size (50,20) on the 
 form 'FooForm', and if the user wants a skin, may I suggest (but not insist) 
 the 'buttonSkinFoo' that I already sent you earlier, plus I need a 
 user-editable textbox over here...etc." (In fact, I think X11 already 
 provides something like this in a slightly more low-level form)

X11 is too low level - it works on windows and drawing commands, but that's about it. Windows Remote Desktop is actually in a much better position, but it is still fairly slow for its own reasons. My DWS project aims to work up on a widget level. It isn't quite as visually fancy as what you are describing (though it could grow into it later), but works on a high enough level of abstraction to be fast - and cross platform. One of the things that makes X feel slow is that it needs to make a lot of round-trips to the server to get anything done. (And the modern toolkits make this *worse* by shoehorning in features the low level protocol wasn't really meant to support.) To solve this, I want to hand off as much processing as possible to the client. And to make that happen, I say you shouldn't be too concerned about the specifics. Tell what widgets you want, but leave the specifics to the viewer. This also gives a bonus for cross platform: when using an app on Windows, the little details should feel like a Windows program, not a Linux one, even if the app itself is running on a Linux server somewhere. One the apps I already have running on it is a notepad program. The code looks like this: --- auto app = new DWSApp; auto window = new MainWindow; window.title = "My notepad"; auto editBox = new TextEdit(window); auto menu = new Menu("File"); menu.addItem(new Action("Save", { std.file.write("file.txt", editbox.text); })); window.addMenu(menu); window.show; app.exec(); --- Most the lines turn into network calls pretty directly. The protocol is binary, so no wasted time parsing text and no wasted bandwidth on bloated stuff like XML. It works on an always open connection, so no annoying lag from stupid nonsense like HTTP polling. The window, menu, and edit box are created however the viewer wants to do it. Currently, I have a Qt/C++ viewer that uses Qt widgets for the actual implementation, but this can be anything - I want to do a MS-DOS text mode viewer eventually to demonstrate the flexibility. A network session would look something like this (each function name is just one byte show down the wire and the arguments are mostly plain ints): createWindow(0); // the argument is the window ID - you tell the server, so you // can use it immediately without waiting on the lag of a response // the D language API hides this from you though as a private member createWidget(TEXT_EDIT, 0); createMenu(0, "File"); // strings are sent across as length ~ data createAction(0, "Save"); addActionToMenu(0, 0); // menuId, actionId showWindow(0); That's just 24 bytes of payload to create the window, no round trip required (except for the ACK from TCP). Now, the user starts typing. His text appears instantly - the computer he is in front of handles the text widget all on its own. The only thing it sends back on the wire: widgetTextUpdate(0, /* description of text changes since last update */); It doesn't need to wait on the program's response - it doesn't care. It just sends this update back to boost speed on future operations and to provide crash protection. (If the viewing computer crashes, or if the network link suddenly dies, the app knows its state, so it can recreate the window when the network comes back. Also useful for migrating the app display to another machine.) You don't have an X11 style
 keyEvent('a');

back and forth. What if the user clicks the menu item? Easy: widgetTextUpdate(); // it flushes updates to ensure the app sees the most // recent text actionTriggered(0); // the D API sees these 2 bytes on the wire and calls // the delegate I passed in the code. That's it! The entire session to edit a quick text file might have only two required round trips to the server - it sips bandwidth and is latency tolerant. More complex programs that can't be built on the ~20 standard widgets will be slower, since they'll have to actually subscribe to the low level key events, etc., but I have a plan (not yet implemented at all) to fix that too by caching event paths. Basically, your app tells the viewer as much as it can to handle little things on its own. "When the user presses 'A', go ahead and draw the letter A at the cursor, but then tell me so I can do fancier processing too." This, not being written in any code at all, however, is subject to change. I'm not sure how well it will actually work in real apps. Nevertheless, even if there is a requirement for special widgets to be slow and talk to the server for everything, the majority of cases should be covered by the standard widgets, giving a big boost overall. In addition to GUI components, I also want to support local file and sound access, along with a few other things. It sucks when you are using an X program and it decides to blare sound out of your home computer when you are using the app from your work computer! Or it is a real pain in the ass to have to save the file in X, then scp it over to open it in a local program. These things should Just Work, and it isn't hard to implement, so I'll be setting that up too. -- Adam D. Ruppe http://arsdnet.net
Oct 12 2009
prev sibling next sibling parent "Adam D. Ruppe" <destructionator gmail.com> writes:
On Tue, Oct 13, 2009 at 12:20:01AM +0200, Yigal Chripun wrote:
 regarding working on a remote machine:
 you can mount a remote file system through ssh and work localy on that 
 remoted filesystem.

Eh, sshfs leaves a lot to be desired. There is a noticeable lag when performing basic operations on it - it really kills the flow when doing a rapid edit/compile loop. It sounds cool on paper, but in practice is rather disappointing. -- Adam D. Ruppe http://arsdnet.net
Oct 12 2009
prev sibling next sibling parent language_fan <foo bar.com.invalid> writes:
Mon, 12 Oct 2009 22:07:34 -0700, Walter Bright thusly wrote:

 Yigal Chripun wrote:
 regarding working on a remote machine: you can mount a remote file
 system through ssh and work localy on that remoted filesystem.

I do that sometimes, but it's a problem when trying to run the compiler/debugger, as they need to run on the remote machine, not just locally <g>. Also, mounting a remote filesystem fails on Windows. I know, that really sux. At least putty works. (10 years ago, I wired up every room in the house with two RG6 cables and two Cat5 cables while it was under construction. Did it myself because the electrical contractor had no idea how to handle high frequency wires, I had to rip all his stuff out and do it over. I had no use for it at the time. I'm sure glad now it was done, everything I have seems to want to plug in to it! Anyhow, I have several machines with different OSs on them on the lan, and ssh to run them from a central location.)

Lucky you. Couple of friends of mine chose the 'data cabling' option from the electrical contractor for their new homes (maybe 2-3 years ago) when they were under construction. The rails on the wall were equipped with RJ11 connectors! Totally useless for LAN, but ok for phone cables and thus xDSL. Another note -- I would use virtualization these days when several OSs are needed.
Oct 13 2009
prev sibling next sibling parent language_fan <foo bar.com.invalid> writes:
Mon, 12 Oct 2009 19:53:32 -0400, Adam D. Ruppe thusly wrote:

 In addition to GUI components, I also want to support local file and
 sound access, along with a few other things. It sucks when you are using
 an X program and it decides to blare sound out of your home computer
 when you are using the app from your work computer!
 
 Or it is a real pain in the ass to have to save the file in X, then scp
 it over to open it in a local program.
 
 These things should Just Work, and it isn't hard to implement, so I'll
 be setting that up too.

Nomachine NX does pretty much what you are describing here. It is not equivalent technically but very similar and backwards compatible.
Oct 13 2009
prev sibling next sibling parent language_fan <foo bar.com.invalid> writes:
Mon, 12 Oct 2009 19:09:11 -0400, Nick Sabalausky thusly wrote:
 A different branch of the this topic started taking about (or rather,
 bashing on) web-apps-being-used-as-desktop-apps, and I mentioned I felt
 that was ass-backwards and that the focus should be the other way
 around: making desktop apps work on the web.
 

 And do so *without* building it on
 top such warped, crumbling, mis-engineered foundations as (X)HTML, Ajax,
 etc.?

You have probably lived under a rock these days. This is the way the world is moving. If something can be made Web 2.0 compatible, it is also what will happen. A new platform might come up in 201x or 202x, but nowadays the best we have got is Web 2.0. Ever used twitter, facebook, google wave (or any google's services) etc. ? Large part of the online enterprises have already jumped on the wagon, not only early adopters. Modern browsers such as opera 10, firefox 3.5, safari, and chrome already support the latest standards.
Oct 13 2009
prev sibling parent "Adam D. Ruppe" <destructionator gmail.com> writes:
Sorry for the slow reply here; I keep getting sidetracked.

On Mon, Oct 12, 2009 at 08:05:06PM -0500, Andrei Alexandrescu wrote:
 One cool thing is combining sshfs with autofs. That way the connection
 is automatically made when you first open a dir. For example, if I write:

That looks cool. I'll have to look into it.
 What are the issues that you encountered?

My big problem is just one of speed. I've been able to work around some of it by changing my editor config (moving vim's swap file to a local dir made the biggest difference), but there is still an annoying noticeable lag when reading and writing the file. I often edit files in a rapid way: make a small change, save, recompile+run or refresh the page if a web app - I want to see the changes as instantly as possible. The sshfs lag isn't much, but it adds up quickly when doing several small changes. I find that if any given task takes hours, I can be very patient, but if it takes milliseconds, I get annoyed easily!
 My problems invariably involve
 suspending the laptop to RAM or changing wireless connections, to then
 find sshfs blocked.

I haven't encountered that, but I also work from my desktop. (Even when on my laptop, I tend to run most programs remotely from the desktop - this is one of the driving forces behind my "D Windowing System" project described in the other thread. (That, and I just want an easy, simple API for my common tasks in D - kill two birds with one stone, I figure.)
 
 Andrei

-- Adam D. Ruppe http://arsdnet.net
Oct 15 2009
prev sibling next sibling parent Ellery Newcomer <ellery-newcomer utulsa.edu> writes:
Walter Bright wrote:
 In my discussions with companies about adopting D, the major barrier
 that comes up over and over isn't Tango vs Phobos, dmd being GPL,
 debugger support, libraries, bugs, etc., although those are important.
 
 It's the IDE.
 
 They say that the productivity gains of D's improvements are
 overbalanced by the loss of productivity by moving away from an IDE. And
 what is it about an IDE that is so productive? Intellisense (Microsoft's
 word for autocompletion).
 
 So, while I'm not going to be writing an IDE, I figure that dmd can
 help. dmd already puts out .doc and .di files. How about putting out an
 xml file giving all the information needed for an IDE to implement
 autocompletion? There'd be one .xml file generated per .d source file.
 
 The nice thing about an xml file is while D is relatively easy to parse,
 xml is trivial. Furthermore, an xml format would be fairly robust in the
 face of changes to D syntax.
 
 What do you think?

Next question: what about conditional compilation?
Oct 12 2009
prev sibling parent Kagamin <spam here.lot> writes:
Walter Bright Wrote:

 What do you think?

moving ddoc to xml will also fix bug 2060
Oct 13 2009