View mode: basic / threaded / horizontal-split · Log in · Help
March 30, 2005
Re: Phobos, the Standard Library, and Process
"David Barrett" <dbarrett@quinthar.com> wrote in message 
news:d2cqk5$2mth$1@digitaldaemon.com...
> "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.

The mac is an example where a codename ended up being a very successful 
product name. I'm glad Apple didn't call it the "Apple IV" or something. Of 
course after a while we ended up with names like "Power Macintosh 5400 LC". 
I can see that "phobos" might not sound formal enough but with the people I 
talk to about D they decide D is a toy right around the time I say the name 
is "D". They chuckle and you can tell they take everything that follows only 
semi-seriously. At least phobos isn't named after an English comedy group 
(not that I don't like Monty Python or Python).
That said, renaming phobos wouldn't be a disaster. As long as it has under 6 
characters or so. :-) And please no TLAs.
March 30, 2005
Re: Phobos, the Standard Library, and Process
"Derek Parnell" <derek@psych.ward> wrote in message news:1js3p5avp9z82.1ico3jukj5eyx$.dlg@40tude.net...
> 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]

I like it
March 30, 2005
Re: Phobos, the Standard Library, and Process
David Barrett wrote:

> 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.

"D the programming language; specification, version 1.0"

Or wait, doesn't specifications have like years or numbers ?
like "the ECMA-262 scripting language" or "the ECMA-334 language"

Sure, those names are for real. Just not something I'd name *my* kid.


Perhaps you meant the compiler ? (currently rather fitting, since each
D compiler has one *separate* version of "standard" runtime library...)

"Digital Mars™ D 1.0" or "GNU D Compiler 1.0" would work, I suppose ?
Then again, all smart people would wait for 1.0.1 or "Service Pack 1"

--anders
March 30, 2005
Re: Phobos, the Standard Library, and Process
Carlos Santander B. wrote:

> 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 they're part of Phobos either? "etc.c.zlib" is just a port
of the zlib.h header file, and etc/c/recls is some old recls 1.2.1 code

They are used from std.zlib and std.recls, which is in Phobos gravity.
More than likely, all that C/C++ code should "disappear" from Phobos.


Having the D wrappers for the libraries is cool, but the code isn't...
(and in the case of recls, it would probably be better off standalone)

My suggestion:
etc.c.zlib -> std.c.zlib (i.e. just the zlib.d module, not the rest)
etc.c.recls/etc.c.stlsoft -> http://synesis.com.au/software/recls/

It's OK to have the standard runtime depend on the zlib library.
After all, it depends on the pthread library and other runtimes ?

--anders
March 30, 2005
Re: Phobos, the Standard Library, and Process
"Anders F Björklund" <afb@algonet.se> wrote in message
news:d2dkvv$dqa$1@digitaldaemon.com...
> My suggestion:
> etc.c.zlib -> std.c.zlib (i.e. just the zlib.d module, not the rest)
> etc.c.recls/etc.c.stlsoft -> http://synesis.com.au/software/recls/
>
> It's OK to have the standard runtime depend on the zlib library.
> After all, it depends on the pthread library and other runtimes ?

The idea behind putting zlib in etc rather than std is that part of the zlib
code is not part of the standard interface to the zlib library. The std part
is the standard interface.
March 30, 2005
Re: Phobos, the Standard Library, and Process
Walter wrote:

>>etc.c.zlib -> std.c.zlib (i.e. just the zlib.d module, not the rest)
> 
> The idea behind putting zlib in etc rather than std is that part of the zlib
> code is not part of the standard interface to the zlib library. The std part
> is the standard interface.

I'm not sure I follow... Surely std.zlib could still remain, even
if the etc.c.zlib import module was moved to std.c.zlib instead ?

Just as std.stdio and std.c.stdio are able to co-exist right now ?
I just thought it was bad that a std module linked to an etc one...

--anders
March 30, 2005
Re: Phobos, the Standard Library, and Process
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")

Geez, I hope nobody sets up a vote on how many people knew this. The 
results would depress the D cognoscenti.

Why not just "D" and "D library".

D library meaning what comes with the DMD compiler.

I think that this Phobos thing (and worse, Deimos thing) just needlessly 
make it hard for people to understand that they are nothing 
extraordinary, or 3rd party, or not genuine parts of D.

I mean, what if in these newsgroups we consistently used the name Mars 
for D. That'd illustrate my point quite well.
March 30, 2005
Re: Phobos, the Standard Library, and Process
Georg Wrede 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")
> 
> Geez, I hope nobody sets up a vote on how many people knew this.

It's just some geek trivia, nothing more - nothing less...
(it's still kinda funny to name them "fear" and "panic")

But just like Walter, I don't see why it is inherently
wrong to give a name to the standard/runtime library ?

Must everything be named like: libc and libstdc++ ?
(Wonder if it should be "libd" or "libstdd", BTW ?)


> Why not just "D" and "D library".

Oh, but it *is* "D" and it *is* the "D runtime library"

The spec link says "Phobos (Runtime Library)", with a
beginning of "Phobos is the standard runtime library"
That it doesn't say: the-standard-D-runtime-library
each and every time on that page, is not that strange ?

It's not like you *have* to know it's called Phobos.
Keep in mind that several on this group are hacking
the language itself, and messing with the internals.
(That is just because D is still under development)

The rest can just go: "import std.stdio;" and "dmd",
and the D compiler takes care of linking with phobos ?


> D library meaning what comes with the DMD compiler.

There are more than the DMD compiler, which is one of the
reasons why we are trying to convince Walter to divorce
DMD and Phobos, and split off the "rt" and "gc" kids too...
See "Ares": http://www.dsource.org/forums/viewforum.php?f=31

Again: the D compiler would take care of this, internally.
It just simplifies switching std lib or GC implementation.

--anders
March 30, 2005
Re: Phobos, the Standard Library, and Process
Anders F Björklund wrote:
> It's just some geek trivia, nothing more - nothing less...
> (it's still kinda funny to name them "fear" and "panic")

:-) Let's not tell anybody outside this NG!

> But just like Walter, I don't see why it is inherently
> wrong to give a name to the standard/runtime library ?

Ehhh, I've argued the reasons all over this NG for the last two days. 
Now, I just give up. (After all, even I know it's not /that/ important.)

But if I were Walter, I'd save the Phobos and Deimos names to something 
grander. Like proprietary products (e.g. payware "unique to Digital 
Mars, known for its Top Class D developer products", sold to D using 
corporations, for megabucks). Since Mars only has so many moons, there 
is a scarcity of First Class names.

> Must everything be named like: libc and libstdc++ ?

You must be a Mac person!  :-)

> (Wonder if it should be "libd" or "libstdd", BTW ?)

Actually, not bad at all!!!
March 30, 2005
Re: Phobos, the Standard Library, and Process
Georg Wrede wrote:

>> But just like Walter, I don't see why it is inherently
>> wrong to give a name to the standard/runtime library ?
> 
> Ehhh, I've argued the reasons all over this NG for the last two days. 
> Now, I just give up. (After all, even I know it's not /that/ important.)

Then again, *unlike* Walter I also don't think that Phobos
should be the primary name for it, but just a cute "nickname"

I think the official name should be: "the D standard library"
(then again, that somehow suggests a standard body involved?)

To me, there is no conflict between the two names for it.
But if I must pick one, then "std" would of course be it...

Renaming the modules or directories to "phobos" is silly.

>> Must everything be named like: libc and libstdc++ ?
> 
> You must be a Mac person!  :-)

If that means like: "not boring", then thank you ! ;-)
(and to be honest I'm a "Mac and Linux" person nowadays)

I don't really have any problem with "libd" and "diesel",
except that it is much less creative than what Phobos is...

But first, the compiler internals and garbage collector
should be split off from the D standard library itself.

That is more important than any renaming or reorganization.

>> (Wonder if it should be "libd" or "libstdd", BTW ?)
>
> Actually, not bad at all!!!

The question was actually: "which one thereof ?",
assuming that it it's a bad thing to have both...

On Unix, that is not really a problem. (by using symlinks)
For instance, Mac OS X does not have any libraries for:
-lc or -lm or -lpthread. But you can still link to them...

> /usr/lib/libc.dylib -> libSystem.dylib
> /usr/lib/libm.dylib -> libSystem.dylib
> /usr/lib/libpthread.dylib -> libSystem.dylib

On Windows, you probably need to pick just one .LIB name ?

--anders
1 2 3
Top | Discussion index | About this forum | D home