"antiAlias" <fu@bar.com> wrote in message news:cgjfh0$2oal$1@digitaldaemon.com...
>
> "Matthew" <admin@stlsoft.dot.dot.dot.dot.org> wrote in message news:cgjf8g$2o6j$1@digitaldaemon.com...
> > > > For the record: if I get involved with this activity, it's a pragmatic
> > > thing with the sole purpose of helping to get a
> > > > working (de facto) standard library in the shortest time practicable.
> It's
> > > not a political statement on my part. I've
> > > > not fallen in with any particular viewpoint/faction, and I've not
> fallen
> > > out with any either.
> > >
> > > ====================
> > > Right; but it needs support. I believe your help will be of enormous
> > > benefit.
> >
> > I think you *significantly* overestimate the level of my
> current/continuing influence.
>
> ************************
>
> <g> I meant with the library code and organization <g>

I am increasingly short of time and, if I'm honest, motivation. (I won't say interest, although that probably reads better, because I'm still very interested in D.)

So, I'm keen to contribute, but I don't know how much effort I can spare. I intend to be an eager sheep in this, rather than a shepherd. I'll gladly shoulder a share of reviews, and maybe in return people can help me with my biggest library failing: poor/lack of documentation. I'll also help out in discussions with library cohesiveness and such.

Maybe you can all help me get back my D-mojo? :-)

"Arcane Jill" <Arcane_member@pathlink.com> wrote in message news:cgk9q0$45v$1@digitaldaemon.com...
> In article <cgk411$1u2$1@digitaldaemon.com>, Walter says...
>
> >It's actually quite cool with me if you fellows want to do this. I'm best at working on the core language, not the library.
>
> Excellent.
>
> Now, call me thick if you like, but there are a couple of things I don't
> understand (everyone).
>
> A while back, I wrote the big integer class Int. When it was nearly finished, we had a discussion on this very newsgroup about what the project/namespace should be called, whether it could go into Phobos, etc.. The very things, in other words, that we are discussing now.
>
> The conclusion then was pretty much the same as the conclusion now - we (the D community) need a place where we can develop our own libraries, without "approval" from Walter. I didn't really care what the project would be called, but it ended up being called Deimos, because Mars has two moons, Phobos and Deimos (fear and chaos!). Then, as now, Walter gave his blessing. I also didn't care what the namespace would be called, but it ended up being called "etc.", and again Walter gave his blessing.

Sigh. Yet another Jill-centric post. Is this a "hug me" message? Dare I posit that this post comes across as a dummy-spit, and maybe that's a clue as to one answer to the questions you pose.

As for the notion of Walter's blessing, this is surely a tenuous thing. He's a very smart, very creative guy, but he's massively overstretched. I wouldn't accord his blessing of your Deimos project with any more, or any less, significance than todays' blessing of Phoenix. If it's off his to-do list, all to the good. If it has some finite chance of future advantage, all the better. But what more significance do you think it does/should have?

> I guess I just don't understand why this is all happening /again/.
>
> I (still) don't care whether it's called "Deimos" or "Phoenix". I never have
> cared.
>
> Since we already /have/ a place to put user-contributed code, those calling for Phoenix would appear to be arguing for something we already have. Unless, of course, what they're /really/ arguing for is the existence of a committee with power to do exactly what Walter does now - and that stinks of a power struggle, of which I want no part.

One can't help but wonder whether you're a frustrated ex-punk, needing to strike out anarchically at every possible coalescence of two or more human beings into the faintest semblance of organisation, seeing mechanistic autocracy where there's only a desire for cooperation and idea-exchange.

I think I've followed all elements of the rising of the Phoenix idea over the last day or so, and I don't recall a single post that had me in the slightest bit concerned about my creativity being stifled. This is hot-airing; you're just punching shadows.

Maybe your forum has not been ignored deliberately? Maybe it's just that it's not on the radar of every D user. Or maybe that people like, say, Kris, have a great deal of pull that you haven't? Or maybe you've misunderstood this issue and you're reacting to something that isn't on anyone else's minds?

In the end, this is an opt-in idea. If it gives you the creeps, then don't participate. I'm certainly going to reserve the right to withdraw, and even if I don't, who's gonna stop me?

> I have a "vision" regarding my crypto software. I know where it's going, even though the end result is a long way off (and I keep getting distracted by Unicode). I do not want to have to "justify" every interface or class design to some committee. If it's there, it's because some future feature (which I might not write for six months or more) is going to need it. I don't want someone else coming along and tweaking it in a different direction, because they won't have the same "vision" - they won't necessarily see where it's /going/. The issues involved in security and crypto are mind-bogglingly subtle, and it might take me an enormous amount of effort to "explain" a decision, particularly if someone is trying to argue against it for some aesthetic principle.
>
> Now - sure - you could say: "Jill, you can be on the committee", or "Jill, the DSLG will approve your project", or whatever, and maybe I'd be placated by that. But the moment somebody says "Nope, we're not doing (for example) random numbers /that/ way, we're doing them /this/ way", you're going to leave me with no choice but to go ahead with my project outside the auspices of the DSLG. Because I'm convinced that I'm "right".

Man, oh man! Is there no beginning to your modesty?

Are you the reification of all distilled wisdom on number theory, such that there's not one iota anywhere else? I suspect not. How the hell do you know that your design is a global maxima, and none of the very smart people who will inhabit Phoenix might have a better idea, or perhaps ways in which small modifications to your library can improve its cohesion with other libraries, or within (the nascent, Phoenix) standard library?

Here's a radical thought: I suggest only people who have a tinge of humility mixed with their arrogance should participate in Phoenix.

For my part, I intend to subject many of my current (and planned) Phobos modules to Phoenix, and I invite, nay relish, criticism. I don't believe that _any_ libraries I write are perfect, and I look forward to the criticism of Phoenixers helping me to improve them. Call me perverse if you like!

> So explain it to me. We need a place to develop libraries which are outside of Walter's control? Okay, we got that. We need a committee to control it? That's the part that bothers me (though, somewhat selfishly, I'll acknowledge that it would bother me less if it endorsed, rather than encumbered, my work). But I just don't get why we need a committee at all. What is with this desire for some people to control /other/ people's creative direction?

There's simply a desire on the part of some people to work together, such that their time spent on D will involve reading and writing _more_ code and _less_ NG jabber.

All the rest of it seems to be only in your head.

Good luck

On Thu, 26 Aug 2004 07:31:18 +0000, Arcane Jill wrote:

> In article <cgja94$2m1o$2@digitaldaemon.com>, Matthew says...
> 
>>How will be be able to work with stuff that *must* go into std.* ??
> 
> There's nothing to stop you putting "module std.utf" (instead of "module etc.utf") at the top of a source file in Deimos, if it really /must/ be in std for some reason. Then all you have to do is link in the right order, and the linker will pick up the Deimos/std file instead of the Phobos/std file.
> 
> Arcane Jill

In fact, if Deimos to meant as a total Phobos replacement, /all/ the Deimos modules should be in std.  Agreed?

In article <cgk5gq$2gp$1@digitaldaemon.com>, antiAlias says...
>
>"Walter" <newshound@digitalmars.com> wrote.

>> It's actually quite cool with me if you fellows want to do this. I'm best
>at
>> working on the core language, not the library.
>
>That's the spirit!  Why didn't you say so before?

Walter is saying that for the past year every single time some one even dreams on a better lib.

Ant

Matthew wrote:

> 
> "Lars Ivar Igesund" <larsivar@igesund.net> wrote in message news:cgk2r7$mv$1@digitaldaemon.com...
>> Matthew wrote:
>> > "antiAlias" <fu@bar.com> wrote in message news:cgja9v$2m27$1@digitaldaemon.com...
>> >
>> >>Hell, then we'll start a new one called "Phoenix" or something.
>> >
>> >
>> > I like that. I vote for Phoenix!
>>
>> Phoenix it should be. But I think the lib should use the std namespace (such that anything that comes in the way could be truly fixed (Exceptions/Errors, alternative GC implementations, etc)), at least for those parts linked in implicitly (the internal parts). I believe the Phobos license would allow a fork of those. phoenix namespace for the rest is probably best when API changes start to appear.
> 
> Yes, I had a bit of a rethink here. Since we can just put phoenix.lib in our include paths, we can override any bits of std.* we want to. Hence, I say, std.* it is. Except for the bits that should be phoenix.*, that is.
> 

I tried overriding a few bits on std.* on Linux and the linker complained about having multiple definitions of what I was overriding - it didn't just pick the first definition it found. I didn't try Windows. But that doesn't mean std.* isn't the right thing to do anyway.

In article <cgk9q0$45v$1@digitaldaemon.com>, Arcane Jill says...
>
>In article <cgk411$1u2$1@digitaldaemon.com>, Walter says...
>
>>It's actually quite cool with me if you fellows want to do this. I'm best at working on the core language, not the library.
>
>Excellent.
>
>Now, call me thick if you like, but there are a couple of things I don't
>understand (everyone).

You're not thick though I might be.

>
>A while back, I wrote the big integer class Int. When it was nearly finished, we had a discussion on this very newsgroup about what the project/namespace should be called, whether it could go into Phobos, etc.. The very things, in other words, that we are discussing now.

If you haven't caught on yet, around here settled issues can become quickly unsettled. The natives are restless and we're discussing doing something different than we had been doing. I brought up the idea of "taking over" Deimos/etc and flooding it with new contributions. Someone else out with the idea of starting anew and redesigning everything. The ideas aren't exactly compatible, so I'm not sure what we're doing yet. I don't think we're going to flood Deimos because you seem to be against the idea of the idea. (I don't think we've even agreed on a plan, but I think you're already against us.)

>The conclusion then was pretty much the same as the conclusion now - we (the D community) need a place where we can develop our own libraries, without "approval" from Walter. I didn't really care what the project would be called, but it ended up being called Deimos, because Mars has two moons, Phobos and Deimos (fear and chaos!). Then, as now, Walter gave his blessing. I also didn't care what the namespace would be called, but it ended up being called "etc.", and again Walter gave his blessing.
>
>I guess I just don't understand why this is all happening /again/.
>
>I (still) don't care whether it's called "Deimos" or "Phoenix". I never have
>cared.
>
>Since we already /have/ a place to put user-contributed code, those calling for Phoenix would appear to be arguing for something we already have. Unless, of course, what they're /really/ arguing for is the existence of a committee with power to do exactly what Walter does now - and that stinks of a power struggle, of which I want no part.

There's a lot of talk right now and some of that talk is about talking more. I know that's a warning sign for design-by-committee, but I think it's a false alarm. We're just venting. "Oh, the situation is so bad! We need to just burn the whole thing down! And start with a clean slate! And wash the chalkboard first!" That's my impression.

>I have a "vision" regarding my crypto software. I know where it's going, even though the end result is a long way off (and I keep getting distracted by Unicode). I do not want to have to "justify" every interface or class design to some committee. If it's there, it's because some future feature (which I might not write for six months or more) is going to need it. I don't want someone else coming along and tweaking it in a different direction, because they won't have the same "vision" - they won't necessarily see where it's /going/. The issues involved in security and crypto are mind-bogglingly subtle, and it might take me an enormous amount of effort to "explain" a decision, particularly if someone is trying to argue against it for some aesthetic principle.

But we can discuss ideas, right?

>Now - sure - you could say: "Jill, you can be on the committee", or "Jill, the DSLG will approve your project", or whatever, and maybe I'd be placated by that. But the moment somebody says "Nope, we're not doing (for example) random numbers /that/ way, we're doing them /this/ way", you're going to leave me with no choice but to go ahead with my project outside the auspices of the DSLG. Because I'm convinced that I'm "right".

Can we at least wait until we have an argument to have an argument?

Now, I understand why we set up a separate "Phobos Rising" forum at dsource. http://www.dsource.org/forums/viewtopic.php?t=312

After reading your post, I'm sure we'll have different module names than "etc.*". I don't want to get in your way.

>So explain it to me. We need a place to develop libraries which are outside of Walter's control? Okay, we got that. We need a committee to control it? That's the part that bothers me (though, somewhat selfishly, I'll acknowledge that it would bother me less if it endorsed, rather than encumbered, my work). But I just don't get why we need a committee at all. What is with this desire for some people to control /other/ people's creative direction?
>
>Arcane Jill

Don't think of it as an authoritarian committee. Think of it as a group of concerned D citizens. We'll only have the power of our coding skill. If someone doesn't want to join, we won't try to make them. If we start laying down a bunch of stuffy rules for our members and no one does anything constructive, we won't accomplish anything. But if we develop common-sense solutions and good code rather than pontificate, we could do well.

jcc7

In article <cgktp2$d5r$1@digitaldaemon.com>, J C Calvarese says...

>If you haven't caught on yet, around here settled issues can become quickly unsettled. The natives are restless and we're discussing doing something different than we had been doing. I brought up the idea of "taking over" Deimos/etc and flooding it with new contributions. Someone else out with the idea of starting anew and redesigning everything. The ideas aren't exactly compatible, so I'm not sure what we're doing yet. I don't think we're going to flood Deimos because you seem to be against the idea of the idea.

No, I'm not against the idea. Quite the reverse actually. My understanding always was that Deimos (unlike Phobos) is open to all. Anyone can contribute. I have absolutely no problem with that.


>(I don't think
>we've even agreed on a plan, but I think you're already against us.)

Not exactly. I don't like Walter's playing the role of "Mr Veto" any more than anyone else. What I'm against is someone else (whether person or committee) taking over that role. What I want to see is the freedom to write and contribute code.


>There's a lot of talk right now and some of that talk is about talking more. I know that's a warning sign for design-by-committee, but I think it's a false alarm. We're just venting. "Oh, the situation is so bad! We need to just burn the whole thing down! And start with a clean slate! And wash the chalkboard first!" That's my impression.

I think you're right.


>But we can discuss ideas, right?

Right.


>After reading your post, I'm sure we'll have different module names than "etc.*". I don't want to get in your way.

etc. is for everyone. Or so I've always believed. I only want to be allowed to finish what I've started without its having to be approved by some offical or unofficial body. What I've started is "etc.random" and "etc.crypto". That's all.



>Don't think of it as an authoritarian committee. Think of it as a group of concerned D citizens. We'll only have the power of our coding skill. If someone doesn't want to join, we won't try to make them. If we start laying down a bunch of stuffy rules for our members and no one does anything constructive, we won't accomplish anything. But if we develop common-sense solutions and good code rather than pontificate, we could do well.

That sounds absolutely and totally agreeable. No problem with that at all. Jill

In article <cgk3gb$1n1$1@digitaldaemon.com>, Arcane Jill says...
>
>In article <cgja2l$2lvl$1@digitaldaemon.com>, Sean Kelly says...
>
>>My only concern about using Demios is that it
>>would likely mean tossing what's currently there
>
>Like hell it would! Deimos is open to all contributors. Phobos isn't.
>
>If you limit Deimos to a select few, then I'm afraid I'll have no choice but to start a third project which /is/ open to all contributors.
>
>Deimos's purpose is very simple. It's a place to put Phobos-wannabe code. It fits with what everybody's been saying on this thread. But if you're gonna start suggesting throwing out Int, or any other contribution, then expect some disagreement.

Exactly.  Which is why I suggested not using Demios as the forum.  If this DSLG business is truly focused on developing a single coherent library for D then it will likely be somewhat restrictive both in what it includes and how its components are structured.  This seems incompatible with the purpose of Demios which is a bit more open.  By choosing a different playground it's less likely that toes will be stepped on.


Sean

In article <cgk9q0$45v$1@digitaldaemon.com>, Arcane Jill says...
>
>So explain it to me. We need a place to develop libraries which are outside of Walter's control? Okay, we got that. We need a committee to control it? That's the part that bothers me (though, somewhat selfishly, I'll acknowledge that it would bother me less if it endorsed, rather than encumbered, my work). But I just don't get why we need a committee at all. What is with this desire for some people to control /other/ people's creative direction?

To me, it's because the end result has to follow an established set of interface standards and such if it's to feel like a standard library.  I have some trepidation as well, but I think some degree of organization is necessary if this will have any hope of supplanting Phobos.

But I think it should be clear that no one should try and tell another *how* to do something.  Especially in their area of expertise.  I think we all feel pretty much the same way as you--if this is going to work we'll need to cooperate, and if it turns into a power struggle then I suspect we'll all leave the project.


Sean

In article <cgl27o$fok$1@digitaldaemon.com>, Sean Kelly says...

>Exactly.  Which is why I suggested not using Demios as the forum.  If this DSLG business is truly focused on developing a single coherent library for D then it will likely be somewhat restrictive both in what it includes and how its components are structured.  This seems incompatible with the purpose of Demios which is a bit more open.  By choosing a different playground it's less likely that toes will be stepped on.

Okay, that makes complete sense to me. Clearly there must be control in a Phobos-replacement, otherwise we'll have one person changing bool to int, someone else coming along and changing it to ubyte, someone else changing it to void*, and then someone else changing back to bit all over again. That sort of thing would be counterproductive for all. In that context, then, I'm all for it.

On the other hand, Deimos is a place where Phobos-wannabees can put their code in the hope that Walter may one day move it to std. It's hard to get stuff into Phobos, so I've always maintained that it should be easy to get stuff into Deimos. All you have to do is start a project and get on with it. No committees, no barriers.

So you're quite right to say there are two different purposes here. And with that understanding, I support the proposal. "Phoenix" seems to be the preferred name for the new arena, so I'll add my support to that. /Presumably/ (although I may have misunderstood this) the top level namespace within Phoenix will just be "std", to take over from Phobos. Is that right? If that's so then perhaps people could develop stuff in Deimos without restraint, and then propose it to the DSLG for possible movement to Phoenix (instead of Phobos) when it reaches a certain level of maturity?

Jill