I Loved the ideas that went Into D. Just having strings as a built-in type make a huge difference! It's close enough to C++ to easily do the jump, and far enough away from C++ to not repeat the same mistakes.
However, D never made it big enough to warrant a full FLTK branch. The biggest drawback of D is the incompatibility to existing C++ code. FLTK 3 will have a compatibility layer though that will make it easy to interface any object oriented language with FLTK. On 21.01.2011, at 16:08, "Domingo Alvarez Duarte" <[email protected]> wrote: > I saw that Mathias have made an attempt to port FLTK to the D language, > the language has some nice features but it seems that people doesn't use > it so much even the fltk port seems to have vanished. > > What is the opnion about the D language here ? > _______________________________________________ > fltk mailing list > [email protected] > http://lists.easysw.com/mailman/listinfo/fltk _______________________________________________ fltk mailing list [email protected] http://lists.easysw.com/mailman/listinfo/fltk
