On Tuesday, 13 May 2014 at 23:26:20 UTC, ed wrote:
On Tuesday, 13 May 2014 at 15:20:36 UTC, FrankLike wrote:
DFL is just a thin wrapper around Win32, no surprise. I've
found my apps written using DFL work quite fine in Linux via
Wine, so I use them from both OSes.
In Linux?The exe was
well you are wrong. but it turns stomach to waste a lot of time
searching in a huge collection of projects that were started and
not finished. those are still advertised in a wiki.
nobody wants a collection of incomplete shambles - its
unfortunatly a huge turn off.
one does pay a price for
Although DFL not use on Linux or Mac os X,it's easy to do for
high level Software Engineer.
Well, go ahead and do it!
On Wednesday, 14 May 2014 at 10:05:25 UTC, Dejan Lekic wrote:
Although DFL not use on Linux or Mac os X,it's easy to do for
high level Software Engineer.
Well, go ahead and do it!
Don't you want to look for the DFL's author Christopher E. Miller?
'DFL is Copyright (C) 2004-2010
On Wednesday, 14 May 2014 at 06:14:16 UTC, FrankLike wrote:
On Tuesday, 13 May 2014 at 23:26:20 UTC, ed wrote:
On Tuesday, 13 May 2014 at 15:20:36 UTC, FrankLike wrote:
DFL is just a thin wrapper around Win32, no surprise. I've
found my apps written using DFL work quite fine in Linux via
On 13/05/14 02:10, FrankLike wrote:
1.DFL's Memory Usage is the least than other. winsamp.exe is 2.1M,DFL's
example's exe is 2.7M.
2.The size of DFL's example's exe files is the least than other, and
only a single file.
3.DFL's source code is the most easy to understand.
Although DFL not use on
On Tuesday, 13 May 2014 at 06:24:27 UTC, Jacob Carlborg wrote:
On 13/05/14 02:10, FrankLike wrote:
1.DFL's Memory Usage is the least than other. winsamp.exe is
2.1M,DFL's
example's exe is 2.7M.
2.The size of DFL's example's exe files is the least than
other, and
only a single file.
3.DFL's
On 13/05/14 08:44, FrankLike wrote:
Thank you.
DWT AND DFL ,their Memory Usage is the least .
but DWT is more complicated than DFL.
Look at the base control :Button
at DFL :only 270 lines ,
but at DWT: need 1400 lines.
Thank you again.
The question is what the buttons in each library is
On Tuesday, 13 May 2014 at 09:32:43 UTC, Jacob Carlborg wrote:
On 13/05/14 08:44, FrankLike wrote:
Thank you.
DWT AND DFL ,their Memory Usage is the least .
but DWT is more complicated than DFL.
Look at the base control :Button
at DFL :only 270 lines ,
but at DWT: need 1400 lines.
Thank you
On Tuesday, 13 May 2014 at 00:10:15 UTC, FrankLike wrote:
1.DFL's Memory Usage is the least than other. winsamp.exe is
2.1M,DFL's example's exe is 2.7M.
2.The size of DFL's example's exe files is the least than
other, and only a single file.
3.DFL's source code is the most easy to understand.
DFL is really cool. Not all programmers need complex toolkits. A
lot of need easy to learning toolkits for medium projects.
It would be cool if somebody will handle developing of DFL. It's
better to have one such toolkit, than tons of complex and not
finished toolkits.
DFL is just a thin wrapper around Win32, no surprise. I've
found my apps written using DFL work quite fine in Linux via
Wine, so I use them from both OSes.
In Linux?The exe was compiled in win32?
Don't play jokes on it.
On Tuesday, 13 May 2014 at 15:28:05 UTC, Suliman wrote:
DFL is really cool. Not all programmers need complex toolkits.
A lot of need easy to learning toolkits for medium projects.
It would be cool if somebody will handle developing of DFL.
It's better to have one such toolkit, than tons of
On 2014-05-13 12:14, FrankLike wrote:
Look at the Button class in DWT.
In Linux ,button class need 844 lines,but in win32 ,button class need
1300 lines.
Look at the setText Method in button class.
There is a great difference between in Linux and in Win32.
public void setText (String
It would be cool if somebody will handle developing of DFL. It's
better to have one such toolkit, than tons of complex and not
finished toolkits.
isn't that the truth. as much as i like D, i find it unusable for
me, since i do not have a ui-/db-toolkit. i want to use the
language, not invent
On Tuesday, 13 May 2014 at 20:42:11 UTC, jack death wrote:
It would be cool if somebody will handle developing of DFL.
It's
better to have one such toolkit, than tons of complex and not
finished toolkits.
Tkd is finished.
Gtk-D is finished.
You aren't going to get very far unless you
On Tuesday, 13 May 2014 at 19:02:03 UTC, Jacob Carlborg wrote:
On 2014-05-13 12:14, FrankLike wrote:
Look at the Button class in DWT.
In Linux ,button class need 844 lines,but in win32 ,button
class need
1300 lines.
Look at the setText Method in button class.
There is a great difference
On Tuesday, 13 May 2014 at 15:20:36 UTC, FrankLike wrote:
DFL is just a thin wrapper around Win32, no surprise. I've
found my apps written using DFL work quite fine in Linux via
Wine, so I use them from both OSes.
In Linux?The exe was compiled in win32?
Don't play jokes on it.
He's not
1.DFL's Memory Usage is the least than other. winsamp.exe is
2.1M,DFL's example's exe is 2.7M.
2.The size of DFL's example's exe files is the least than other,
and only a single file.
3.DFL's source code is the most easy to understand.
Although DFL not use on Linux or Mac os X,it's easy to do
19 matches
Mail list logo
