FAQFAQ   SearchSearch   MemberlistMemberlist   UsergroupsUsergroups   RegisterRegister 
 ProfileProfile   Log in to check your private messagesLog in to check your private messages   Log inLog in 

Your opinion about the ported SWT?
Goto page Previous  1, 2
 
Post new topic   Reply to topic     Forum Index -> Tioport
View previous topic :: View next topic  
Author Message
keinfarbton



Joined: 03 Dec 2005
Posts: 224
Location: Stuttgart - Germany

PostPosted: Fri Apr 27, 2007 2:57 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

bobef
Quote:
I am afraid if Tioport's 10 seconds become


Hm, i can't say that for sure, but i believe this time will not increase a lot. This is because of the initialization, that currently includes the complete SWT. DWT does not implement some packages, e.g. browser, dnd AFAIK

As soon as D reflection is in place, it will be possible to include only the needed parts and remove many of the internal helper code.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
bobef



Joined: 05 Jun 2005
Posts: 269

PostPosted: Fri Apr 27, 2007 3:23 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

keinfarbton wrote:
bobef
Quote:
I am afraid if Tioport's 10 seconds become


Hm, i can't say that for sure, but i believe this time will not increase a lot. This is because of the initialization, that currently includes the complete SWT. DWT does not implement some packages, e.g. browser, dnd AFAIK

As soon as D reflection is in place, it will be possible to include only the needed parts and remove many of the internal helper code.


Actually DWT has browser and dnd, the only problem with DWT is that it needs to be updated manually (I think it is port of SWT 3.0), and I doubt anyone will do that. So inevitably DWT will fade...
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
doob



Joined: 06 Jan 2007
Posts: 367

PostPosted: Fri Apr 27, 2007 5:24 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

If I compare SWT and DWT I think SWT has many disadvantage over DWT for example:

SWT is a dynamic library and therefor it can fail to load and you have to ship it with you application.

SWT takes a lot of resource compared to DWT, both in hard disk space and memory, example I have a small application one version in DWT and one in SWT, the SWT version takes around 11MB on the hard disk, the same DWT application takes under 1MB.

It takes a lot longer to compile a SWT application then a DWT application.

A couple of minor things you must or can't write in the code
that you expect you can or that you didn't know you had to write.

It seems to be a big problem to compile and use SWT.

But there's two big advantages SWT has over DWT and they are:
SWT can be ported automatically and therefor it can be ported to multiple platforms also.

Please notice that I'm not against SWT I think is great but for now I prefer DWT for the reasons above,
but I guess that DWT will die out eventually also for the reasons above
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
keinfarbton



Joined: 03 Dec 2005
Posts: 224
Location: Stuttgart - Germany

PostPosted: Sat Apr 28, 2007 9:01 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

@BLS
I used the rake tool, because it seems the easiest way for me, to have the same build process for win32 and linux.
Quote:
1) porting the Poseidon IDE to SWT. (I can do that, with some help)
...

Wow, that would be fantastic. I really hope, you get this done. If you need my support, please tell me.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
keinfarbton



Joined: 03 Dec 2005
Posts: 224
Location: Stuttgart - Germany

PostPosted: Sat Apr 28, 2007 9:11 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

@bobef
Quote:
Is it possible to use char[] instead of new blah.blah.blah.String ?

This was asked before, i will try to find a solution...
The automatic generation of that is full of problems, because it will generate conflicts with methods that have wchar[] params. But I will try to add mixins for the generated classes, to be able to add manually written helper methods (with param type char[] calling the String methods).
I think, this would also be very helpful for methods with array arguments.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
larsivi
Site Admin


Joined: 27 Mar 2004
Posts: 453
Location: Trondheim, Norway

PostPosted: Sat Apr 28, 2007 11:38 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

To answer about Mango/Tango and XML:

XML is important enough for us to consider having in Tango proper, but that will only happen when we have an implementation that is as performant and easy to use as possible for as many scenarios as possible. This most likely also involves XPath support among other things. The Mango SAX parser is very good, but SAX is generally considered to be on it's way out, i.e. not modern and the usage pattern can be less than friendly for many use cases. This make us reluctant to consider this particular implementation.

It's not really a problem to create a bundle of Mango and Tango, but whereas Tango has functionality that is needed by most programs, Mango don't. The functionality there is much more directed to specific uses, and would also be much more prone to competing implementations for use in other scenarios. So from the Tango point of view, Mango is a different project, even if the developers are overlapping. I would personally think that using dsss with the net install feature and automatic dependency resolving would be the best solution. dsss would perhaps need better versioning to handle it properly though.

Also note that reflection is available for D now, but it needs additional tools/libraries to those already needed to build and use SWT.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
BLS



Joined: 28 Mar 2006
Posts: 44
Location: France

PostPosted: Sat Apr 28, 2007 4:08 pm    Post subject: 5 Libraries too much Reply with quote

larsivi wrote:
To answer about Mango/Tango and XML:

XML is important enough for us to consider having in Tango proper, but that will only happen when we have an implementation that is as performant and easy to use as possible for as many scenarios as possible. This most likely also involves XPath support among other things. The Mango SAX parser is very good, but SAX is generally considered to be on it's way out, i.e. not modern and the usage pattern can be less than friendly for many use cases. This make us reluctant to consider this particular implementation.

It's not really a problem to create a bundle of Mango and Tango, but whereas Tango has functionality that is needed by most programs, Mango don't. The functionality there is much more directed to specific uses, and would also be much more prone to competing implementations for use in other scenarios. So from the Tango point of view, Mango is a different project, even if the developers are overlapping. I would personally think that using dsss with the net install feature and automatic dependency resolving would be the best solution. dsss would perhaps need better versioning to handle it properly though.

Also note that reflection is available for D now, but it needs additional tools/libraries to those already needed to build and use SWT.

I disagree,
1) SAX
old but aproved, better than nothing.

2) XPATH
dito

3) Mango and Tango are dedicated to satisfy different developer interests;
-Really? Just want to remind to the XML related discussion
- What about DOT NET respective Java ? I guess they are pretty unhappy about having a quit complete environment.

4) DSSS
What should I say? comes along with at least 5 foreign tools. and bah I am not willing to use my pc for garbage collection purposes.

5)Tango
Far away frome beeing a complete general purpose lib. (even if bundled with Mango) so instead of reinventing a lot of things just because of creating a world class IO lib. I like to suggest to use and implement what is available and to offer (later) an alternative solution ....

just to say it loud SWT/D is IMO a nessesary part of a general purpose lib.
Quote:

Also note that reflection is available for D now, but it needs additional....

Do I miss something ?

Trutz Blanke Hans
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
Gregor



Joined: 05 May 2006
Posts: 72
Location: Portland, OR

PostPosted: Sat Apr 28, 2007 4:45 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

I was asked to post a response to the DSSS "complaints" by BLS here.

But the complaints basically amount to: DSSS BAD BECAUSE I SAY SO.

So, my response is: BLS' opinion of DSSS seems to be ill-formed and basically meaningless. I don't really care that some people aren't fans of DSSS, but it bugs me when the reasoning is completely ridiculous.

Oh wait, there was one actual "point" amongst it. Yes, DSSS for Windows comes with some third-party tools. This is because there are plenty of tasks that would be silly to fold into DSSS, but don't equate to tools which come standard with Windows. These tools are:

  • bsdtar. Used to uncompress .tar.gz, .tar.bz2 and .zip archives. The alternative would be either not supporting them, trying to find the tools magically (yeah right), or including GNU tar, gzip, bzip2 and InfoZIP.
  • curl. Used to download from HTTP[S], FTP, etc. The reason for including this is simply a why-reinvent-the-wheel problem.
  • patch. Used ... well, to patch.
  • svn. The command-line version. Most Windows users I've found don't have the command-line SVN installed, they use a GUI, and that's not very useful for DSSS.
  • unix2dos. Converts line endings in patches. Necessary for patch.
  • A bunch of DLLs. These are the prerequisites for the above binaries.


More information on them: http://svn.dsource.org/projects/dsss/winbins/README

Yes, it's a bit hefty, but there is no alternative. Since the complaint is simply that they exist, and nothing more reasonable, I suppose I have to concede: OH MY GOD, they exist!

Sarcastically yours,

Gregor Richards
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message AIM Address
BLS



Joined: 28 Mar 2006
Posts: 44
Location: France

PostPosted: Sat Apr 28, 2007 5:30 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

Gregor wrote:
I was asked to post a response to the DSSS "complaints" by BLS here.

But the complaints basically amount to: DSSS BAD BECAUSE I SAY SO.

So, my response is: BLS' opinion of DSSS seems to be ill-formed and basically meaningless. I don't really care that some people aren't fans of DSSS, but it bugs me when the reasoning is completely ridiculous.

Oh wait, there was one actual "point" amongst it. Yes, DSSS for Windows comes with some third-party tools. This is because there are plenty of tasks that would be silly to fold into DSSS, but don't equate to tools which come standard with Windows. These tools are:

  • bsdtar. Used to uncompress .tar.gz, .tar.bz2 and .zip archives. The alternative would be either not supporting them, trying to find the tools magically (yeah right), or including GNU tar, gzip, bzip2 and InfoZIP.
  • curl. Used to download from HTTP[S], FTP, etc. The reason for including this is simply a why-reinvent-the-wheel problem.
  • patch. Used ... well, to patch.
  • svn. The command-line version. Most Windows users I've found don't have the command-line SVN installed, they use a GUI, and that's not very useful for DSSS.
  • unix2dos. Converts line endings in patches. Necessary for patch.
  • A bunch of DLLs. These are the prerequisites for the above binaries.


More information on them: http://svn.dsource.org/projects/dsss/winbins/README

Yes, it's a bit hefty, but there is no alternative. Since the complaint is simply that they exist, and nothing more reasonable, I suppose I have to concede: OH MY GOD, they exist!

Sarcastically yours,

Gregor Richards


Well Gregor,
I would like to suggest to read the "DSSS release x.xx available" announcements at digitalmars.d.announce, may be you have a closer look on the user-comments ? I guess, all in all : Idiots.

Sincerely,
Bjoern Lietz-Spendig
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
keinfarbton



Joined: 03 Dec 2005
Posts: 224
Location: Stuttgart - Germany

PostPosted: Sat Apr 28, 2007 5:41 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

1) SAX
I personally would like to see a XML parser as soon as possible in tango. Having a SAX parser does not mean, we cannot have a DOM later. Or we also can deprecate the SAX parser, in case the 'beating all' parser drops in from somewhere Smile

2) XPATH
I don't care about XPATH, the java implementations i tried in the past were so slow. Twice I started to use them, and later i removed all xpath using code, because of performance looses.

3) Mango and Tango
---

4) DSSS
I don't understand your POV.
I had very much trouble with bud in the past, less with rebuild and dsss just works.
I try to minimize the time i need to maintain a build process for win32/linux. DSSS and Rake are a big help here. I don't care if I need to install some megs of tools, if it means i can save some time.

5)Tango
My (personally) prefered lib is definitely tango. It has actually no XML parser, but i hope this will be added. Phobos also does not have one, and i think, it won't get one. To much work for one person, to maintain such things.

Quote:
just to say it loud SWT/D is IMO a nessesary part of a general purpose lib.

Sure, i would appreciate this. But i think it will be a long way, until the time this can happen.

Quote:
Also note that reflection is available for D now, but it needs additional....
Do I miss something ?

I think, lars meant a tool, that can generate reflection information. It is called rudin. It probable can solve the initialization problem and with that the executable size and compile time. But this means a complete bunch of work. So, I really hope for native reflection soon.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
Gregor



Joined: 05 May 2006
Posts: 72
Location: Portland, OR

PostPosted: Sat Apr 28, 2007 6:03 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

BLS wrote:
Well Gregor,
I would like to suggest to read the "DSSS release x.xx available" announcements at digitalmars.d.announce, may be you have a closer look on the user-comments ? I guess, all in all : Idiots.


This is so uniquely irrelevant, I have no response. Consider this a notice of my future nonparticipation in this silly discussion.

Basically, the conversation is:

<BLS> Tioport's SWT is great. But absolutely every other piece of D software ever written is garbage, and dependencies are always bad. SWT should depend on NOTHING NOTHING NOTHING (except what I use).
<everyone else> ...?

So, why are we continuing this conversation? I don't know. So I'm not.

- Gregor Richards
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message AIM Address
BLS



Joined: 28 Mar 2006
Posts: 44
Location: France

PostPosted: Sat Apr 28, 2007 6:32 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

User comments are irrelevant ???
Thin skin ?
Come on Gregor, cool down. Cool

I simply think that you produce too much different tools, too often,too fast. ... And I prefer monolithic tools, that is the story. Sorry for picking so much on your nerves, In no case I have the intention to **discreditate you, respective your work !
** Hopefully correct/understanable
Bjoern


Gregor wrote:
BLS wrote:
Well Gregor,
I would like to suggest to read the "DSSS release x.xx available" announcements at digitalmars.d.announce, may be you have a closer look on the user-comments ? I guess, all in all : Idiots.


This is so uniquely irrelevant, I have no response. Consider this a notice of my future nonparticipation in this silly discussion.

Basically, the conversation is:

<BLS> Tioport's SWT is great. But absolutely every other piece of D software ever written is garbage, and dependencies are always bad. SWT should depend on NOTHING NOTHING NOTHING (except what I use).
<everyone else> ...?

So, why are we continuing this conversation? I don't know. So I'm not.

- Gregor Richards
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
Display posts from previous:   
Post new topic   Reply to topic     Forum Index -> Tioport All times are GMT - 6 Hours
Goto page Previous  1, 2
Page 2 of 2

 
Jump to:  
You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum
You cannot vote in polls in this forum


Powered by phpBB © 2001, 2005 phpBB Group