On 2013-02-06 16:41, Robert wrote:

> :-) That is pretty much what I had in mind! Awesome! I would love to
> help with this. I would start with some writing down of my ideas and
> concepts I have in mind, if you are interested? If you are, where should
> we discuss such things? On this mailing list?

Yes, I would be interested. I don't know what would be the best communication channel.

>> I will replace the Ruby code with D.
> As the ultimate goal of my idea was to establish D as a compiled
> language with all/most of the benefits of interpreted languages, it
> would seem strange if the tool that made this possible was not written
> in D. It would suggest that this was not possible in the first place. So
> I think this is a good idea.
>
> Concise definitions could be made possible, either by importing stuff in
> an appropriate environment as Andrei suggested or if needed even via a
> DSL, with string mixin's. So I think D already offers all we need, for
> good concise configuration files?

As I said, I will replace Ruby with D, that includes the DSL. It's the only place where Ruby is used. The rest is D.

-- 
/Jacob Carlborg

On 2013-02-06 18:15, Dmitry Olshansky wrote:

> I've been wondering what happened to it, looks fine I think.

I've been working on other projects for a while but now I've started to work on it again.

-- 
/Jacob Carlborg

As Sönke Ludwig seems to work on something very similar, it might make sense to join forces with him too. I will look into both implementations next week, to see where we stand.

> 
> As I said, I will replace Ruby with D, that includes the DSL. It's the only place where Ruby is used. The rest is D.
> 

On Thu, 2013-02-07 at 09:45 +0100, Jacob Carlborg wrote:
> Yes, I would be interested. I don't know what would be the best communication channel.

Great! :-) I think for now, maybe this mailing list is not the worst
place. (At least I don't know a better one)

Best regards,

Robert

> I think the opposite. When we think about more concepts in Phobos, like gui, serialization, cryptography and so on, we will be able to create the right amount of hierarchy with distinguishable names. I'm in favor of a big batteries included library.

Yeah, but I still think that breaking independent parts up in independent projects, will make the whole thing more manageable.

If some of these projects happen to be within the std package and be installed by default, that is fine.

Best regards,

Robert

On 2/6/2013 6:58 PM, deadalnix wrote:
> Well Walter seems very worried about breaking code, but seems unable to adopt
> any practice the reduce its effect, and in the facts, my cod break at any new
> dmd release (and right now compile with none released one).

Here's the current list of regressions:

http://d.puremagic.com/issues/buglist.cgi?query_format=advanced&bug_severity=regression&bug_status=NEW&bug_status=ASSIGNED&bug_status=REOPENED

If what's causing your code to break isn't there, it is unlikely to get fixed.

On 2013-02-06 19:56, Brad Anderson wrote:

> I have a dream that someday phobos will just be a metapackage in a
> package manager that installs a set of core modules.
>
> What is needed to get Orbit off the ground (Kepler's law, I guess, would
> be the joke answer)?

As with most things, it's time.

I have basically an hour per day to work on D. On weekends I can work more on D.

Quite a lot of that time goes to reading these newsgroups. I'm also not religiously working every one of these hours or being 100% focused.

-- 
/Jacob Carlborg

On 2013-02-06 22:24, David Nadlinger wrote:

> Somebody actually working on it.
>
> No offense, Jacob, but to me it seems like you have quite a few
> interesting projects (DVM, DStep, Orbit, …), and although you are
> usually quick to advertise them here, it seems that none of them is
> quite ready for prime time.

That's very true, that I'm working on several projects. Saying that none of them are ready for prime time is not really fair.

DVM - Has seen several releases and does what I intended it to do.
DStep - Has seen one release. It could use more work but it basically does what it should.
Orange - Has only seen one proper release. Could be faster and support more archives but this does what it's intended to do
Orbit - This is not finished yet. But many things do work.

> Maybe concentrating your efforts on one of them would be a good idea?
> Otherwise, you'll inevitably leave behind a trail of broken expectations
> as you cannot realistically expect to support all of them at the same time…

The problem is that I need all these tools and libraries. If one wants something done it's best to do it yourself.

Also it can be quite tiresome to work on the same project all the time. Especially if you get stuck, then it can be good to have something else to work on for a while.

-- 
/Jacob Carlborg

On 2/6/2013 8:06 PM, Chad Joan wrote:
> Although I can sort of see the logic behind this convention, it is very hard to
> think of a function that operates on ranges and automatically know which module
> to look in.

Unfortunately, I don't think any reorg will help with that, as all functions that deal with input and output should use ranges.

On 2013-02-06 18:22, Andrei Alexandrescu wrote:

> I understand. The way I see this is as an motivation and opportunity to
> add the necessary functionality to Phobos. I may be uninformed, but the
> way I see it basic package management doesn't have to be very demanding
> on library functionality.

No it doesn't need to have a demanding library functionality. But I have creating these libraries because they contain common code I use in several of my tools and libraries. I think duplicating that code just to avoid having any library dependencies would be quite foolish.

The reason why I use Tango is that it contains functionality that is either missing or not good enough in Phobos. Also, remember that I started this project several years ago.

-- 
/Jacob Carlborg