I have a proposal. The idea isn't new and is perhaps a bit boring, but anyway.

In the newsgroups there are many comments like: "Can't just Phobos disappear?" and similar. From other side the .NET Framework has a dull name, but everyone can tell you that this is _the_ framework for the .NET languages. No mistakes here!

And now the idea: why not name the standard D library after the language itself - "D Framework"?

I can contribute the dframework.org domain. IMPORTANT! I can transfer it to whoever wants to own it! So, Walter, just give me a sign.

I dream about a modern, multi-platform framework for D. I dream about a tiny Runtime which can be used in embedded systems and a rich, modular framework that can fulfill programmer's needs. You may call me a dreamer, but the .NET Framework makes .NET successful... And it doesn't matter how nice the language is, but without libraries you are always at reinventing the wheel...

I love to hear your thoughts.

teo wrote:

> I have a proposal. The idea isn't new and is perhaps a bit boring, but anyway.
> 
> In the newsgroups there are many comments like: "Can't just Phobos disappear?" and similar. From other side the .NET Framework has a dull name, but everyone can tell you that this is _the_ framework for the .NET languages. No mistakes here!
> 
> And now the idea: why not name the standard D library after the language itself - "D Framework"?
> 
> I can contribute the dframework.org domain. IMPORTANT! I can transfer it to whoever wants to own it! So, Walter, just give me a sign.
> 
> I dream about a modern, multi-platform framework for D. I dream about a tiny Runtime which can be used in embedded systems and a rich, modular framework that can fulfill programmer's needs. You may call me a dreamer, but the .NET Framework makes .NET successful... And it doesn't matter how nice the language is, but without libraries you are always at reinventing the wheel...
> 
> I love to hear your thoughts.

I don't see that many comments about wanting phobos to disappear. Frankly, I find the .NET framework not as good as everybody saying it is. It is comprehensive and easy to use for sure, but not always as consistent as advertised. It is sometimes quite verbose too for such a high-level enterprise. The .NET framework is supposed to be 'progressive', meaning easy to get into for simple things and open for more advanced needs. In practice I find often times I need to redo lot's of things in a different way when my needs change.

Sorry for the rant, I just think phobos as is developing is superior to the .NET framework and has a much cooler name too :) Same goes for Tango, albeit quite different design than phobos, it's very good too and beats .NET hands down. Also, Tango has a better name.

That being said, I agree with the gist of your post. But your best bet to find a comprehensive, multi-platform, quality framework for D is the qtd library. Just look at it, it's way larger than just gui! Database programming, webbrowser components, high quality graphics, networking stuff, etc. etc:

http://www.dsource.org/projects/qtd http://doc.qtsoftware.com/4.5/index.html

On Tue, 28 Jul 2009 08:55:17 +0200, Lutger wrote:

> Sorry for the rant, I just think phobos as is developing is superior to the .NET framework and has a much cooler name too :) Same goes for Tango, albeit quite different design than phobos, it's very good too and beats .NET hands down. Also, Tango has a better name.

Well, they both have only cool names. Reading the newsgroups shows that they are incomplete and buggy. I tried Tango a bit and at many places noticed problems. Phobos was ok last time I used it (two years ago), but I did simple stuff.

Anyway I don't want to offend anyone here. I read that Andrei is redesigning Phobos and I am sure he will improve it. My point is however about having a meaningful library name.

PS: please don't take anything in my post personally.

teo Wrote:

> On Tue, 28 Jul 2009 08:55:17 +0200, Lutger wrote:
> 
> > Sorry for the rant, I just think phobos as is developing is superior to the .NET framework and has a much cooler name too :) Same goes for Tango, albeit quite different design than phobos, it's very good too and beats .NET hands down. Also, Tango has a better name.
> 
> Well, they both have only cool names. Reading the newsgroups shows that they are incomplete and buggy. I tried Tango a bit and at many places noticed problems. Phobos was ok last time I used it (two years ago), but I did simple stuff.
> 
> Anyway I don't want to offend anyone here. I read that Andrei is redesigning Phobos and I am sure he will improve it. My point is however about having a meaningful library name.
> 
> PS: please don't take anything in my post personally.

Please stop discussing library names. There are bigger concerns with the D language.

The name does not make the functionality. But if you want to talk about names, Tango sounds old to me. It is a dance and it sounds like it came from the 60s. Phobos has this sci-fi note to it. Maybe because some of us are fans of star craft protos:).

On Tue, 28 Jul 2009 16:51:34 -0400, Dimitar Kolev wrote:

> Please stop discussing library names. There are bigger concerns with the D language.

I am sure that from marketing point of view the name is much more important than the functionality... Some day it should be marketed and for your private projects you may choose the language/framework by yourself, but at work other people will choose it for you - people for whom Tango will sound like the dance and Phobos like one of Mars' moons.

On Wed, Jul 29, 2009 at 2:24 PM, teo<teo.ubuntu.remove@yahoo.com> wrote:
> On Tue, 28 Jul 2009 16:51:34 -0400, Dimitar Kolev wrote:
>
>> Please stop discussing library names. There are bigger concerns with the D language.
>
> I am sure that from marketing point of view the name is much more important than the functionality... Some day it should be marketed and for your private projects you may choose the language/framework by yourself, but at work other people will choose it for you - people for whom Tango will sound like the dance and Phobos like one of Mars' moons.

Marketing?  I don't think Walter's really looking to get rich with D. And there are plenty of popular things out there with silly-sounding names - Hadoop, Twitter, Meebo, Mibbit..

Dimitar Kolev wrote:
> Please stop discussing library names. There are bigger concerns with the D language.
> 
	True

> The name does not make the functionality. But if you want to talk about names,
 > Tango sounds old to me. It is a dance and it sounds like it came
from the 60s.
> Phobos has this sci-fi note to it. Maybe because some of us are fans of star craft protos:).

	And now I'll go ahead and add some noise here ;) Phobos sounds
*much* older to me since I associate it with the god of fear in
Greek mythology (plus, is the god of fear really a good symbol for
any software project? :)

		Jerome
-- 
mailto:jeberger@free.fr
http://jeberger.free.fr
Jabber: jeberger@jabber.fr

2009/7/29 "Jérôme M. Berger" <jeberger@free.fr>:
>        And now I'll go ahead and add some noise here ;) Phobos sounds *much*
> older to me since I associate it with the god of fear in Greek mythology
> (plus, is the god of fear really a good symbol for any software project? :)

Well "Phobos" as a name was far more clever when D was still called
"the Mars language" ;)  (DMD's main() is actually still declared in
mars.c)

> Marketing?  I don't think Walter's really looking to get rich with D.
I vaguely remember Walter asking for ideas to make money with D though. (might remember that incorrectly:)

> And there are plenty of popular things out there with silly-sounding names - Hadoop, Twitter, Meebo, Mibbit..Google

I think most of those have that silly sounding name for a reason, aka
marketing.
Is the target market being reached with those names, is the question.
Or, what is the purpose of the name and does it work towards that.

teo Wrote:

> On Tue, 28 Jul 2009 16:51:34 -0400, Dimitar Kolev wrote:
> 
> > Please stop discussing library names. There are bigger concerns with the D language.
> 
> I am sure that from marketing point of view the name is much more important than the functionality... Some day it should be marketed and for your private projects you may choose the language/framework by yourself, but at work other people will choose it for you - people for whom Tango will sound like the dance and Phobos like one of Mars' moons.

Google is the misspelled number googol.

Googolplex is the name of the headquarters of google.

Are you using google or not?

What does it matter if it is google. It is still useful. Apple is a fruit but I have an IPhone though the name is lame. Just an I in front of the phone.