View mode: basic / threaded / horizontal-split · Log in · Help
March 29, 2005
Phobos, the Standard Library, and Process
Let me see if I can summarize the state of the debate, and follow up with a 
proposal to Walter:

1) Walter is the gatekeeper for the "official" standard library, but he is 
very busy.  Thus it's been proposed that an "unofficial" standard library 
"Ares" be created in the meantime (and work has started toward this end). 
What I like about this approach is it takes Walter out of the critical path, 
freeing him to focus on the compiler.  The downside is without Walter's 
involvement, it's unclear if Ares will ever be made "official" (and thus 
truly "standard").  Regardless, I think there's consensus that Phobos isn't 
evolving as fast or as deliberately as we'd all like.

2) Originally I heard a lot of interest in choosing a formal name for the 
"official" standard library, as well as one vote that Phobos *is* the 
official name.  Again, do we want to keep the Phobos name (at which I'd 
suggest we rename the "std" namespace to be "phobos"), or should we change 
the name to something including the word "standard" ("standard runtime", "D 
standard library", etc.)?  Regardless, I think there's consensus that the 
Phobos name should either be embraced or changed, for once and for all.

3) I heard a number of detailed suggestions on how to word a "seventh rule" 
in the Phobos Philosophy, with the general intent that it clarify top-level 
module/package relationships ("std", "etc", etc.).  Regardless, I think 
there's consensus that *some* seventh rule should be added, even if the 
precise wording hasn't been decided.


So as for my proposal:

I think we're unable to proceed without Walter's lead.

Walter, can you take a break from compiler coding long enough to:

1) Clarify your vision of which modules should fit into each top-level 
package ("std", "etc", maybe "rt", etc.) ?  You mentioned "I don't want to 
fill Phobos up with functions of marginal utility, it needs to be widely 
useful, core building blocks."  Could you update the "Phobos Philosophy" 
page to reflect this desire?  I've proposed wording for a seventh rule, but 
anything along these lines would work.  Also, could you lay out the rules 
that govern additions to "etc" or any other key packages, if you have any?

2) Give your opinion on the naming issue?  Personally, I find the Phobos 
name confusing and, frankly, unprofessional.  It reinforces (to me) the 
notion that D is a "toy language".  However, my major concern is that the 
use of "Phobos", "Standard Library", and "Standard Runtime" are 
inconsistently used and all (apparently) equally valid.  In my opinion, the 
largest value of a "standard library" is to create a consistent lexicon with 
which D programmers can communicate.  If we can't even agree on what to call 
the "standard library", it doesn't bode well for anything it contains.

3) Nominate a "standard library" czar that you will communicate with 
regularly, and who will execute on your vision?  This person could either 
create update Phobos so that adheres to the new documented rules, or create 
a new standard library (such as Ares) that at some point in the future is 
swapped with the original.  Regardless, *someone* needs to be leading this 
charge, and if you don't have the personal bandwidth to do it, this would be 
a great thing to delegate.

Any thoughts?

-david

PS: For the cynics out there, I don't want to be the czar.  I just want a 
truly standard library, and that's the only way I can see it occuring.
March 29, 2005
Re: Phobos, the Standard Library, and Process
David Barrett wrote:

> 2) Originally I heard a lot of interest in choosing a formal name for the 
> "official" standard library, as well as one vote that Phobos *is* the 
> official name.  Again, do we want to keep the Phobos name (at which I'd 
> suggest we rename the "std" namespace to be "phobos"), or should we change 
> the name to something including the word "standard" ("standard runtime", "D 
> standard library", etc.)?  Regardless, I think there's consensus that the 
> Phobos name should either be embraced or changed, for once and for all.

Mars is the codename for D, ("the programming language")
Phobos is the codename for std, (short for "standard")
Deimos is the codename for etc. (short for "etcetera")

I'm not sure it's all that much to get hung up upon...
Better to fix the *contents* of the runtime library ?

--anders
March 29, 2005
Re: Phobos, the Standard Library, and Process
Anders F Björklund wrote:
> David Barrett wrote:
> 
>> 2) Originally I heard a lot of interest in choosing a formal name for 
>> the "official" standard library, as well as one vote that Phobos *is* 
>> the official name.  Again, do we want to keep the Phobos name (at 
>> which I'd suggest we rename the "std" namespace to be "phobos"), or 
>> should we change the name to something including the word "standard" 
>> ("standard runtime", "D standard library", etc.)?  Regardless, I think 
>> there's consensus that the Phobos name should either be embraced or 
>> changed, for once and for all.
> 
> 
> Mars is the codename for D, ("the programming language")
> Phobos is the codename for std, (short for "standard")
> Deimos is the codename for etc. (short for "etcetera")
> 
> I'm not sure it's all that much to get hung up upon...
> Better to fix the *contents* of the runtime library ?
> 
> --anders

Exactly right.


-- 
jcc7
http://jcc_7.tripod.com/d/
March 30, 2005
Re: Phobos, the Standard Library, and Process
"J C Calvarese" <jcc7@cox.net> wrote in message 
news:d2cnr6$2jvv$2@digitaldaemon.com...
> Anders F Björklund wrote:
>>
>> Mars is the codename for D, ("the programming language")
>> Phobos is the codename for std, (short for "standard")
>> Deimos is the codename for etc. (short for "etcetera")
>>
>> I'm not sure it's all that much to get hung up upon...
>> Better to fix the *contents* of the runtime library ?
>>
>> --anders
>
> Exactly right.
>

It's not that I can't perform the mapping between the Greek/Roman 
mythological and D namespaces.  I merely assert that this mapping reinforces 
the negative stereotype that D is a toy.  Traditionally, so long as a 
product goes by its code name, it broadcasts to the world that it's a beta 
project, and thus not yet ready for real use.

Eventually, D will be released, and thus ready for real use.  Traditionally, 
at this "coming of age" point, products and technologies shed their 
codenames and thus convey to the world that they're for real.

In preparation for this day, I think we should figure out what the "real" 
name is, and start getting used to it.

Does anyone agree with this position?  What's Walter's position?

-david
March 30, 2005
Re: Phobos, the Standard Library, and Process
Anders F Björklund wrote:
> David Barrett wrote:
> 
>> 2) Originally I heard a lot of interest in choosing a formal name for 
>> the "official" standard library, as well as one vote that Phobos *is* 
>> the official name.  Again, do we want to keep the Phobos name (at 
>> which I'd suggest we rename the "std" namespace to be "phobos"), or 
>> should we change the name to something including the word "standard" 
>> ("standard runtime", "D standard library", etc.)?  Regardless, I think 
>> there's consensus that the Phobos name should either be embraced or 
>> changed, for once and for all.
> 
> 
> Mars is the codename for D, ("the programming language")
> Phobos is the codename for std, (short for "standard")
> Deimos is the codename for etc. (short for "etcetera")
> 

Errr, not exactly: etc.c.zlib, etc.c.recls, and etc.c.stlsoft, are not 
part of Deimos (what I don't know if they're part of Phobos).

> I'm not sure it's all that much to get hung up upon...
> Better to fix the *contents* of the runtime library ?
> 

I also agree.

> --anders

_______________________
Carlos Santander Bernal
March 30, 2005
Re: Phobos, the Standard Library, and Process
David Barrett wrote:
> "J C Calvarese" <jcc7@cox.net> wrote in message 
> news:d2cnr6$2jvv$2@digitaldaemon.com...
...
> In preparation for this day, I think we should figure out what the "real" 
> name is, and start getting used to it.

I'm not opposed to that. I've already suggested "D Standard Library" as 
the official name. 
(http://www.digitalmars.com/drn-bin/wwwnews?digitalmars.D/20275)

Do you like it? (Yes) (No) (Maybe)

If you prefer another name, please make a counter-suggestion.

> Does anyone agree with this position?  What's Walter's position?

Often Walter prefers to sit back in the background and wait for us to 
"gang up" on him. I respect that.

-- 
jcc7
http://jcc_7.tripod.com/d/
March 30, 2005
Re: Phobos, the Standard Library, and Process
Carlos Santander B. wrote:
> Anders F Björklund wrote:
...
>> Mars is the codename for D, ("the programming language")
>> Phobos is the codename for std, (short for "standard")
>> Deimos is the codename for etc. (short for "etcetera")
>>
> 
> Errr, not exactly: etc.c.zlib, etc.c.recls, and etc.c.stlsoft, are not 
> part of Deimos (what I don't know if they're part of Phobos).

Yeah, the policy on "etc" never seemed clear to me. Maybe we need a 
std.detritus (i.e., std.detritus.c.zlib, std.detritus.c.recls, 
std.detritus.c.stlsoft). It seems to me that stuff shouldn't be 
permanently in "etc". If part of "std" requires it, let's just fold it 
into "std".

-- 
jcc7
http://jcc_7.tripod.com/d/
March 30, 2005
Re: Phobos, the Standard Library, and Process
"J C Calvarese" <jcc7@cox.net> wrote in message 
news:d2cr96$2nbo$1@digitaldaemon.com...
> I'm not opposed to that. I've already suggested "D Standard Library" as 
> the official name. 
> (http://www.digitalmars.com/drn-bin/wwwnews?digitalmars.D/20275)
>
> Do you like it? (Yes) (No) (Maybe)
>
> If you prefer another name, please make a counter-suggestion.

(Yes) I like it.
March 30, 2005
Re: Phobos, the Standard Library, and Process
On Tue, 29 Mar 2005 18:18:49 -0600, J C Calvarese wrote:

> David Barrett wrote:
>> "J C Calvarese" <jcc7@cox.net> wrote in message 
>> news:d2cnr6$2jvv$2@digitaldaemon.com...
> ...
>> In preparation for this day, I think we should figure out what the "real" 
>> name is, and start getting used to it.
> 
> I'm not opposed to that. I've already suggested "D Standard Library" as 
> the official name. 
> (http://www.digitalmars.com/drn-bin/wwwnews?digitalmars.D/20275)
> 
> Do you like it? (Yes) (No) (Maybe)

Not really. It sounds too "officialeese". Sounds like it might have come
from an IBM marketing department. ;-) And it will be abbreviated to DSL and
pronounced "diesel" :D

"D Standard Library" is a description not a name. "Henry" is a name, but
not a good one for the library set though ;-)

> If you prefer another name, please make a counter-suggestion.

How about "Diesel"?  :D~ [/me gets slapped again]

-- 
Derek
Melbourne, Australia
30/03/2005 10:43:43 AM
March 30, 2005
Re: Phobos, the Standard Library, and Process
In article <d2cr96$2nbo$1@digitaldaemon.com>, J C Calvarese says...
>
>David Barrett wrote:
>> "J C Calvarese" <jcc7@cox.net> wrote in message 
>> news:d2cnr6$2jvv$2@digitaldaemon.com...
>...
>> In preparation for this day, I think we should figure out what the "real" 
>> name is, and start getting used to it.
>
>I'm not opposed to that. I've already suggested "D Standard Library" as 
>the official name. 
>(http://www.digitalmars.com/drn-bin/wwwnews?digitalmars.D/20275)
>
>Do you like it? (Yes) (No) (Maybe)
>
>If you prefer another name, please make a counter-suggestion.
>
>> Does anyone agree with this position?  What's Walter's position?
>
>Often Walter prefers to sit back in the background and wait for us to 
>"gang up" on him. I respect that.
>
>-- 
>jcc7
>http://jcc_7.tripod.com/d/

No. D aka "Mars" the compiler, the decription "Standard runtime library" aka
"Phobos" (that uses the std path), and the decription "non-Standard runtime
library" aka "Deimos" that maps to the existing etc path for possible Phobos
want-a-bees, take all of but half a programmer's brain cell and a few seconds to
understand what these are once told. 

<warning soapbox>
Beside, IMHO creative product names show a lot more character of the creator and
of the users (didn't know, that if you use D... you're a Martian? :)) ), more so
than those dime a dozen Corprate stamped-out marketing driven names. I think
Walter himself said it best about D, "It's a practical language for practical
programmers who need to get the job done quickly, reliably, and leave behind
maintainable, easy to understand code." 
</warning soapbox>

Anyway, it would be far better to spend this time before D v1.0 to find ways
improve the Phobos runtime library, and to find any errors in the D compiler
(and if possible, submit corrections) placing them as a bug report on the D.bug
forum. 

David L.

-------------------------------------------------------------------
"Dare to reach for the Stars...Dare to Dream, Build, and Achieve!"
« First   ‹ Prev
1 2 3
Top | Discussion index | About this forum | D home