Ok, sounds like the tally is as follows:

[For renaming Phobos to "D Standard Library"] J C Calvarese, David Barrett
[For renaming Phobos, but to something else (Diesel)] Derek Parnell, Matthew
[Ambivalent] Ben Hinkle
[Against renaming] David L. Davis

[Unknown] Anders F Björklund, Carlos Santander B, Sean Kelly, Walter, Benjamin Herr,  Georg Wrede, Trevor Parscal, everyone else

I apologize in advance if I've mis-categorized anyone; please correct me.

-david

"David Barrett" <dbarrett@quinthar.com> wrote in message news:d2d505$3029$1@digitaldaemon.com...
> Ok, sounds like the tally is as follows:
>
> [For renaming Phobos to "D Standard Library"] J C Calvarese, David Barrett
> [For renaming Phobos, but to something else (Diesel)] Derek Parnell, Matthew
> [Ambivalent] Ben Hinkle
> [Against renaming] David L. Davis
>
> [Unknown] Anders F Björklund, Carlos Santander B, Sean Kelly, Walter, Benjamin Herr,  Georg Wrede, Trevor Parscal, everyone else
>
> I apologize in advance if I've mis-categorized anyone; please correct me.

I'm not allied to the one you've put me on. If I have to be somewhere, I think I'm probably with Ben. (Which makes a nice change <g>)

But I really think this is an irrelevance, c/w the real issues with Phobos itself. We could have Phobos renamed, including all documentation and all code, in virtually a single sweep, and certainly within a week from decision to release. But it seems like Phobos itself hasn't got any closer to being ready in at least a year and a half.

And I have to disagree with Walter's recent assertion (or maybe my interpretation of it) that bug fixing in the language/compiler is more important than fixing Phobos. I think unless and until D has a good library that has been well and widely tested, it makes advances in and improvement of the language/compiler somewhat moot. To me, they're 50-50, not 80-20 (or 70-30 or whatever figure might be induced from Walter's post).

David Barrett wrote:
> Ok, sounds like the tally is as follows:
> 
> [For renaming Phobos to "D Standard Library"] J C Calvarese, David Barrett

To call it the "D Standard Library" isn't even really renaming it. It's just calling it what it is.

> [For renaming Phobos, but to something else (Diesel)] Derek Parnell, Matthew

Actually, I like Diesel as a name, too. (Even though the other pro-"Diesel" commentators were most likely joking.)

> [Ambivalent] Ben Hinkle

And I don't think Phobos is an awful name, so I have a pretty ambivalent position.

> [Against renaming] David L. Davis

Phobos definitely makes sense from a historical perspective.

All-in-all it sounds like a hung jury. Perhaps we should move on to a less "controversial" topic? ;)

-- 
jcc7
http://jcc_7.tripod.com/d/

"J C Calvarese" <jcc7@cox.net> wrote in message news:d2d663$310n$1@digitaldaemon.com...
> David Barrett wrote:
>> Ok, sounds like the tally is as follows:
>>
>> [For renaming Phobos to "D Standard Library"] J C Calvarese, David Barrett
>
> To call it the "D Standard Library" isn't even really renaming it. It's just calling it what it is.

Indeed.

>> [For renaming Phobos, but to something else (Diesel)] Derek Parnell, Matthew
>
> Actually, I like Diesel as a name, too. (Even though the other pro-"Diesel" commentators were most likely joking.)

I wasn't joking that I like the name, and I don't think Derek was either. The thing I wasn't taking seriously was the import given to this issue by David.

>> [Ambivalent] Ben Hinkle
>
> And I don't think Phobos is an awful name, so I have a pretty ambivalent position.
>
>> [Against renaming] David L. Davis
>
> Phobos definitely makes sense from a historical perspective.
>
> All-in-all it sounds like a hung jury. Perhaps we should move on to a less "controversial" topic? ;)

As someone with little/no knowledge of Ares, I want to hear from _this_ community whether people who care about contributing to a material jump in quality of D's libraries (DSL included) should persevere here and try to push reform of Phobos, or should give up and move over to DSource and work on Ares.

Furthermore, if it's the latter, is there any structure/agreement/plan for how the presumed advances in Ares would be married back into D(MD) before 1.0? (Naturally, if the D language improves to a merchantable level, and the D compiler improves to a merchantable level, and Ares is at a merchantable level, and the library that ships with the language/compiler is at the current scrappy state, there's going to be huge WTF from potential D users.)

On Tue, 29 Mar 2005 19:04:35 -0800, David Barrett wrote:

> [For renaming Phobos, but to something else (Diesel)] Derek Parnell

It was a joke, David, though its growing on me. Truthfully, I don't really give a dam about the name. Its the content and structure that is much, much, more important. I'm not greatly swayed by the names people give to things, and the "Phobos" moniker has never brought to my mind the idea of a toy language or library. Actually, I think its rather clever. But like I said, call it whatever, and it'll still be its contents rather than its name.

-- 
Derek
Melbourne, Australia
30/03/2005 1:59:05 PM

J C Calvarese wrote:

> Actually, I like Diesel as a name, too. (Even though the other pro-"Diesel" commentators were most likely joking.)

Great, then we can have one library called "DSL" and one called "VIN".
And change the language name to "Riddick" :-) (as in the Chronicles of)

Put me in the "whatever" category, if you must categorize us people...
I'll be dusting off all my patches, and emailing them to Walter instead.

--anders

"Matthew" <admin.hat@stlsoft.dot.org> wrote in message news:d2d5s9$30mq$1@digitaldaemon.com...
> But I really think this is an irrelevance, c/w the real issues with Phobos itself. We could have Phobos renamed, including all documentation and all code, in virtually a single sweep, and certainly within a week from decision to release. But it seems like Phobos itself hasn't got any closer to being ready in at least a year and a half.

I've only been paying attention for about eight months, but I concur.

> And I have to disagree with Walter's recent assertion (or maybe my interpretation of it) that bug fixing in the language/compiler is more important than fixing Phobos. I think unless and until D has a good library that has been well and widely tested, it makes advances in and improvement of the language/compiler somewhat moot. To me, they're 50-50, not 80-20 (or 70-30 or whatever figure might be induced from Walter's post).

I totally agree with Matthew here.

-david

"Derek Parnell" <derek@psych.ward> wrote in message news:flusmieh5ey1$.1vupt1onsq15r$.dlg@40tude.net...
> It was a joke, David, though its growing on me. Truthfully, I don't really give a dam about the name. Its the content and structure that is much, much, more important. I'm not greatly swayed by the names people give to things, and the "Phobos" moniker has never brought to my mind the idea of
a
> toy language or library. Actually, I think its rather clever. But like I said, call it whatever, and it'll still be its contents rather than its name.

I like the name Phobos. I don't think it's cute, certainly it's less cute than 'Boost' which is a silly name that hasn't impeded it in the slightest. Nobody thinks Boost is a toy. I've seen endless 3 letter acronyms, and would like to just be a bit more creative than "DSL" or other boring acronym.

I've had thoughts of naming all D libraries after moons. <g>

I like "Diemos" very much as the etc library.

"Java" is another name for a major product that is not impeded by its name.

"Euphoria", well, it sounds like a designer drug. I wouldn't be surprised if it is held back by that name.

I agree that what the library does is far more important than its name.

As for the final tally, it sounds like nobody's passionate for changing the name except for me.  That said, nobody's passionately (mildly, but not passionately) against changing it either.  The bulk just don't seem to care one way or the other.

So Walter, if I just went ahead and updated all the documentation and library code to standardize on the term "D Standard Library", would you integrate that with the main tree?

To repeat my reasoning, I think that Phobos is a great codename, and should serve its place in history.  But codenames, by definition, are not public names.  By referring to the D standard library by codename (or worse, with a variety of names), it confuses new users and reinforces the notion that D is messy and incomplete.

And as for the source of my passion, I don't think this is the #1 issue facing D.  Not even #10.  But it is an issue, and it seemed like the best place to start in helping D along in its path to greatness.

-david

Walter wrote:

> "Java" is another name for a major product that is not impeded by its name.

"A" major product? These days, Sun are using the Java name for ANYTHING!

- Java 2 Platform, Standard Edition (platform and language)
- Java 2 Platform, Enterprise Edition
- Java 2 Platform, Micro Edition

- Sun Java System Web Server (briefly known as Sun ONE)
- Sun Java System Directory Server
- Sun Java System Portal Server
- Sun Java System Web Proxy Server

- Sun Java System Active Server Pages (an ASP emulator !)

- Sun Java Desktop System, Release 2 (Linux distribution)

- Sun Java Workstation W1100z (a "Java Actual Machine" ?)
- Sun Java Workstation W2100z

No, I am not making these up... They are. (on a daily basis, feels like)


Then again, people "on the street" can't separate Java and JavaScript...
(which probably also have a lot to do with old buggy web page applets ?)

So I'm not sure that Java sets a very good example of non-confusion ?

--anders