Adam Wilson is now a GSoC 2012 mentor!

[Andrei Alexandrescu]

We're very happy and honored to had Adam Wilson on board as a GSoC 2012
mentor. Adam brings solid project management experience and has a
specific interest in the Mono-D project.

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


Thanks,

Andrei

[BLS]

On Monday, 26 March 2012 at 15:27:29 UTC, Andrei Alexandrescu

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

Welcome Adam and congratulation Alex.

I am using Mono-D and I almost enjoy it. One thing is for sure:
Code LookUp /
"Intellisense" is great in Mono-D, ,Code outline simply rox, and
MNono-D is (in this regard) light years ahead of Visual D.

The pure speed in which Alex's code analyzer is working is just
xtreme amazing. Alex ? Benchmarks ?

But it is a GTK# and MONO based project and this means it is
finally a C# project.

I am pretty sure that we will have a complete wxWidgets 2.9.3
binding in a few days/weeks. (and we will have a TOOL to create
almost automatic wxWidgets 2.4. 2.5, 3.0 bindings) incl. say Gtk
3.0 and iOS support)

So. wouldn't make more sense to ask Alex to port and enhance his
code analyzer into D2 as GSOC project to become part of a wxD2
driven IDE ?
I think, Yep.
Despite that,
Alex, thanks for Mono-D, very well done.
My 2 cents, Bjoern

[Adam Wilson]

Post by BLS
On Monday, 26 March 2012 at 15:27:29 UTC, Andrei Alexandrescu

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

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

I think that the best thing that we can do right now is to focus on
bringing the parser to completion. It's still missing some key features of
D, especially in terms of code-completion and syntax highlighting. It's
also missing UFCS from 2.058, which is a pretty big deal I think. For a
full list of tasks that Alex would like to get done please see this list:
https://github.com/aBothe/Mono-D/blob/master/MonoDevelop.DBinding/Remaining%20features.txt

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

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

[Kapps]

Post by Adam Wilson
I think that the best thing that we can do right now is to
focus on bringing the parser to completion. It's still missing
some key features of D, especially in terms of code-completion
and syntax highlighting. It's also missing UFCS from 2.058,
which is a pretty big deal I think. For a full list of tasks
https://github.com/aBothe/Mono-D/blob/master/MonoDevelop.DBinding/Remaining%20features.txt
As to an IDE written in D, that's a HUGE project and well
outside the scope of what can be accomplished in a GSoC
project. It takes millions of lines of code to make a *DECENT*
IDE. Not to mention that UI design is something that will
always polarize the community, some basically want a glorified
VIM/EMACS while other will settle for nothing less than a
Visual Studio clone, still more people will want a radically
different UI from anything previously seen (I personally am
intrigued by Code-Bubbles for instance). Plus why bother with
that when we can integrate into existing solutions like
MonoDevelop or Visual Studio *much* quicker.
I personally think that Mono-D represents the most capable path
forward for D IDE's right now, maybe later that might change as
D grows, but for the moment we need an complete IDE fast, and
integration can deliver that.

And one of the very nice things about Mono-D is that the parser
is completely standalone. It would not be difficult to integrate
into Visual Studio in the future. Both are done in C#, and both
are somewhat similar to code for. Instead of making a D specific
IDE, we can just use a very nice plugin for both Visual Studio
and Mono-D, with being able to use the same code-base for the
logic.

[bls]

And one of the very nice things about Mono-D is that the parser is
completely standalone. It would not be difficult to integrate into
Visual Studio in the future

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

Writing a State of the Art D2 IDE will not necessarily require a
million lines of code .

I am convinced that developing in wxD2*** code will be very close to
what you do in wxPython, maybe even smarter.

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

[Adam Wilson]

Post by bls

And one of the very nice things about Mono-D is that the parser is
completely standalone. It would not be difficult to integrate into
Visual Studio in the future

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

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

Post by bls
Writing a State of the Art D2 IDE will not necessarily require a
million lines of code .

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

Post by bls
I am convinced that developing in wxD2*** code will be very close to
what you do in wxPython, maybe even smarter.
But I am loosing the point. Even if Alex carries on in Mono-D during
GSOC it is a good thing. And.. if we are not able to translate C# stuff
into D2 than the D2 design fails..

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

[alex]

Hi there,

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

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

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


Oh btw, there's a new Mono-D version :D

[bls]

Hi,
to make it absolutely sure !! I hope that Alex's project will make it.

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

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

IMO this is questionable. What do you count as required LOC ?
Say this is what could be done by Plug-Ins.

SVN / GIT support,
Database Explorer,
ER Designer
UML Designer
XML/XSL support
SOAP/REST support
etc.

So the core IDE has to support a flexible Doc/View Model a Plug-In
Architecture, and Source code analysis.
Maybe an internal project-management that supports a build/make tool.
Debug Support.
Period.
All that visual stuff, say panel docking, gui persistence has not to be
written from the scratch.. It is part of the GUI lib.

Exotic stuff, You want the best ever Ultimate Development Environment.
Say you want Realtime developer collaboration/Video conferencing ... a
piece of cake in Python (using async IO/ XMPP ....) No rocket science at
all.

Post by Adam Wilson

Post by bls
I am convinced that developing in wxD2*** code will be very close to
what you do in wxPython, maybe even smarter.
But I am loosing the point. Even if Alex carries on in Mono-D during
GSOC it is a good thing. And.. if we are not able to translate C#
stuff into D2 than the D2 design fails..

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

Well, here I definitely should shut up.. std.collections... Anyway from
time to time I think it would make sense to port the MOMO/NET collection
stuff into D. Simply to make porting of dot net code possible without
too much pain. but that's an other story.

Thanks for being a Mentor for this Project.

[Jacob Carlborg]

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

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

[Adam Wilson]

Post by Jacob Carlborg

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

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

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

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

[Jacob Carlborg]

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

I agree with you. If you want to use the same IDE for EVERYTHING than
that will take a lot more work. In that case I don't see much point in
reinventing the wheel when we have MonoDevelop and Eclipse. But I think
an IDE can be for one language and still be called IDE, although others
might call it a glorified text editor.

[alex]

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

Well, I think the GSoC phase will be about implementing UFCS,
Mixin/Expression evaluation and CTFE then. Well cool, so I found
the key features that I'll do for Mono-D.

I'll prepare an application document then - so I probably will
hand it in to the digitalmars heads tomorrow or on thursday,
dunno exactly :)

[Bruno Medeiros]

Post by Adam Wilson
As to an IDE written in D, that's a HUGE project and well outside the
scope of what can be accomplished in a GSoC project. It takes millions
of lines of code to make a *DECENT* IDE.

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

[Jacob Carlborg]

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

Half of Eclipse is ported to D :)

https://github.com/d-widget-toolkit

[Andrew Wiley]

Post by Bruno Medeiros
I agree, this idea to write a proper, *fully-featured* IDE in D is

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

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

Half of Eclipse ~4-6 years ago ported to D.
That certainly doesn't make it not useful, but DWT hasn't managed to keep
up with Eclipse.
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.puremagic.com/pipermail/digitalmars-d-announce/attachments/20120518/adce93fc/attachment.html>

[Jacob Carlborg]

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

I know, I know. Any help is welcome.

[Paulo Pinto]

Post by Jacob Carlborg

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

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

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

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

--
Paulo

[Jacob Carlborg]

Post by Paulo Pinto
As someone that has experience developing Eclipse plugins, I would say
that is more like a 1/4 of Eclipse or even less. :)
The UI framework is very little from the complete runtime infrastructure
that Eclipse offers.

That's why I added the smiley :)