Honestly, the only thing lacking with D (for me) is the lack of good support from Qt (which I think is something Qt should tackle by making the moc multilingual). But I agree with Walter. D already did what Carbon is trying to do, but the syntax is easy enough to pick up in a weekend.
back
1 comments
> Honestly, the only thing lacking with D (for me) is the lack of good support from Qt (which I think is something Qt should tackle by making the moc multilingual)
it's possible to do Qt without moc even in C++ with https://github.com/woboq/verdigris/, why wouldn't it be possible from D ? it should be even easier considering that D traits allow reflection of member and function names, etc.
> it's possible to do Qt without moc even in C++ with https://github.com/woboq/verdigris/, why wouldn't it be possible from D ?
You're talking about an entirely different thing. While OP was referring to the current state of D's ecosystem and the impact that missing key frameworks have on hindering adoption, you're arguing about the theoretical possibility of writing a framework with a language, which really does not address OP's point.
No, you are misunderstanding their point. If the problem of using Qt from D is that you need the MOC, then the fact that you can work around the need for MOC and use Qt without it seems quite relevant?
The initial complaint was that it did not have "good support." I think it is fair to say that having to spend a significant amount of effort to work around a lack of support is not "good support."
Indeed, that is what I meant. I would like to see Qt allow some sort of language-abstracted moc so I can just install Qt and a set of Qt bindings and then use them. Just because I can work around the moc doesn't mean that I can easily and productively use Qt from D.
But .. how would that work ? What does "language-abstracted" means for something which is specifically about a language ?
E.g. moc in c++ looks for your classes with a Q_OBJECT macro to generate the matching reflection & metaobject data in a .cpp: how does that work in a language that doesn't have preprocessor macros, or maybe even classes, e.g. Scheme or some BASIC dialect ? In addition, moc is only necessary for languages that do not have proper reflection & code generation facilities - if they do, it's entirely unnecessary as the metaobject code can just be generated in-language as part of the bindings you're mentioning. E.g. consider the python Qt bindings: they don't need a moc. Same for D.
It is possible, but nobody did it.