I read the online documentation of D and decided to give it a try. I'll need to choose one of D1 with Phobos, D1 with Tango, or D2 with Phobos.

The minimalist in me wants Phobos, the app writer wants Tango, and the programming language lover wants D2. Any advice on what combination I should choose? I want to first write a few programs for my own use. Thank you, Dee Girl

Dee Girl wrote:
> I read the online documentation of D and decided to give it a try. I'll need to choose one of D1 with Phobos, D1 with Tango, or D2 with Phobos. 
> 
> The minimalist in me wants Phobos, the app writer wants Tango, and the programming language lover wants D2. Any advice on what combination I should choose? I want to first write a few programs for my own use. Thank you, Dee Girl

I use Phobos+1.0 because 2.0 is so chaotic regarding const and because I got started before there as a tango.

Someone has a D snapshot that has DMD, Tango and some other usefully stuff. So My reasons for Phobos are Darn weak for anyone new starting in.

BCS Wrote:

> Dee Girl wrote:
> > I read the online documentation of D and decided to give it a try. I'll need to choose one of D1 with Phobos, D1 with Tango, or D2 with Phobos.
> > 
> > The minimalist in me wants Phobos, the app writer wants Tango, and the programming language lover wants D2. Any advice on what combination I should choose? I want to first write a few programs for my own use. Thank you, Dee Girl
> 
> I use Phobos+1.0 because 2.0 is so chaotic regarding const and because I got started before there as a tango.
> 
> Someone has a D snapshot that has DMD, Tango and some other usefully stuff. So My reasons for Phobos are Darn weak for anyone new starting in.

Thank you for the fast response. Maybe learning D1 before D2 can be compared to C before C++. If that is true then it is best to start with D2. If each new release of D2 does not break many programs in subtle ways maybe I will be fine with D2. But is Phobos sufficient? Thank you, Dee Girl

Dee Girl wrote:
> The minimalist in me wants Phobos, the app writer wants Tango,

Tango is very easily "stripped down" (i.e. dependencies between packages are well thought-out), so it's a lot easier to make Tango more minimal than it is to do with Phobos. Where does the whole "Phobos is more minimal" attitude come from (just that it's more similar to the C/C++ standard libraries or that its feature set is smaller...?)

"Dee Girl" <deegirl@noreply.com> wrote in message news:g02fb3$dj8$1@digitalmars.com...
> BCS Wrote:
>
>> Dee Girl wrote:
>> > I read the online documentation of D and decided to give it a try. I'll need to choose one of D1 with Phobos, D1 with Tango, or D2 with Phobos.
>> >
>> > The minimalist in me wants Phobos, the app writer wants Tango, and the programming language lover wants D2. Any advice on what combination I should choose? I want to first write a few programs for my own use. Thank you, Dee Girl
>>
>> I use Phobos+1.0 because 2.0 is so chaotic regarding const and because I got started before there as a tango.
>>
>> Someone has a D snapshot that has DMD, Tango and some other usefully stuff. So My reasons for Phobos are Darn weak for anyone new starting in.
>
> Thank you for the fast response. Maybe learning D1 before D2 can be compared to C before C++. If that is true then it is best to start with D2. If each new release of D2 does not break many programs in subtle ways maybe I will be fine with D2. But is Phobos sufficient? Thank you, Dee Girl

IMO:

Phobos should only be considered a fallback for when Tango isn't available. Phobos is the "official" standard, but Tango is the "de facto" standard. Kinda weird, but, ehh, one of the quirks of D.

So I'd say either "D1+Tango" or "D2+Phobos", which the edge going to "D1+Tango" just because Tango and Phobos are totally different, but D2 is (more or less) a superset of D1 (there are some small changes, but I'd say *mostly* it's the same thing with new features. New features that are not yet set in stone and could change before D2 eventually gets finalized.) Ie, IMO, down-the-road when Tango supports D2, transitioning from D1 to D2 should be easier than keeping up with the D2 changes *and then* transitioning from Phobos to Tango.

Robert Fraser Wrote:

> Dee Girl wrote:
> > The minimalist in me wants Phobos, the app writer wants Tango,
> 
> Tango is very easily "stripped down" (i.e. dependencies between packages are well thought-out), so it's a lot easier to make Tango more minimal than it is to do with Phobos. Where does the whole "Phobos is more minimal" attitude come from (just that it's more similar to the C/C++ standard libraries or that its feature set is smaller...?)

I was referring only in terms of what I need to learn to get going. I think some aspects of Tango are more complicated than they could be. There is a history of flame wars regarding Tango and Phobos. Therefore please allow me to specify that I do not have any attitude yet, only a subjective impression. I have not used either library yet. Thank you, Dee Girl

Robert Fraser wrote:
> Dee Girl wrote:
>> The minimalist in me wants Phobos, the app writer wants Tango,
> 
> Tango is very easily "stripped down" (i.e. dependencies between packages are well thought-out), so it's a lot easier to make Tango more minimal than it is to do with Phobos. Where does the whole "Phobos is more minimal" attitude come from (just that it's more similar to the C/C++ standard libraries or that its feature set is smaller...?)

Yea from my personal experience all the code i ported to tango resulted in slightly smaller executable sizes - at least on win32.

The tango code is spread out over more source files, but each file is relatively small.

Dee Girl Wrote:

> I read the online documentation of D and decided to give it a try. I'll need to choose one of D1 with Phobos, D1 with Tango, or D2 with Phobos.
> 
> The minimalist in me wants Phobos, the app writer wants Tango, and the programming language lover wants D2. Any advice on what combination I should choose? I want to first write a few programs for my own use. Thank you, Dee Girl

You will waste a lot of time and then find it is underdeveloped , understaffed  and grossly overstated but feel free to try . Post back when you see what I mean

Tower Ty wrote: a comment that makes me wonder why he's still around.

Real question: If you think it's that bad, why bother?

BCS wrote:
> Tower Ty wrote: a comment that makes me wonder why he's still around.
> 
> Real question: If you think it's that bad, why bother?

Heh, its all the Java/.NET cut-n-paste coders who's heads expload when they come across a system that doesn't hold their hand through everything.

Which isnt to say D is anywhere near polished atm. But in reality, the only thing D needs now is a strong compiler and a high performance GC. The rest is more or less fluff.