On Thu, 14 Feb 2013 22:15:14 -0500, Walter Bright <newshound2@digitalmars.com> wrote:

> On 2/14/2013 6:06 PM, Jonathan M Davis wrote:
>> Anyone is free to use Tango in their own apps, just like they're free to use
>> any 3rd party library. The problem is that Andrei doesn't want anything to be
>> "official" unless it only depends on official stuff (I don't know how Walter feels
>> about that). So, if Orbit is to be D's official package manager (and presumably
>> be in the D-Programming-Language group on github), it can't depend on any
>> libraries other than D's standard library and its own internal libraries.
>
> I agree with Andrei, it's part of that "eat your own dogfood" thing, at least for "official" stuff.
>

I think holding off on package distribution management because a tool doesn't work exclusively with phobos does not sit well with the goal of practicality.  Imagine if we required the compiler to be written in D before it was "official".

Include the tool, work on the dogfood later.  Note that most of the dependencies are built-in to the tool, not external libs.

BTW, I just got a dog, and I call this statement into question, dogs eat freaking anything :)

-Steve

On 2013-02-15 14:35, Andrei Alexandrescu wrote:

> Allow me to qualify this.
>
> Tango is a fine library, and it's great that the whole issue of Tango
> vs. Phobos has been settled by allowing the two to coexist in the same app.
>
> That being said, when discussing things to be added to the official
> canon, there are two aspects to be thought of. First, there's the whole
> licensing issue - if we start distributing code with heterogeneous
> licenses we create only headaches for our users. Second, it's about the
> story we put forward: if the standard library offers some functionality
> but its own satellite packages redo it from scratch with slightly
> different names, that's just not good.

The different names are the minor issues. It's rather the XML, zip, net and argument parsing modules that is the problem.

-- 
/Jacob Carlborg

On Friday, 15 February 2013 at 14:03:02 UTC, Andrei Alexandrescu wrote:
> Dicebot, if Jacob allows you to copy his design with a clean-room implementation, I think this is a great way going forward.
>
> Andrei

I don't think I am capable of doing full-scale adaptation for Orbit but I could have made a pull request improvements for some module API's he has found lacking, like std.getopt . Whenever Orbit will actually make it, those enhancement should be worth doing anyway.

On 2/15/13, Dicebot <m.strashun@gmail.com> wrote:
> I don't think I am capable of doing full-scale adaptation for Orbit but I could have made a pull request improvements for some module API's he has found lacking, like std.getopt

Btw std.getopt already has some pull requests open:

https://github.com/D-Programming-Language/phobos/pull/1050 https://github.com/D-Programming-Language/phobos/pull/1030

On 2013-02-15 15:03, Andrei Alexandrescu wrote:

> Dicebot, if Jacob allows you to copy his design with a clean-room
> implementation, I think this is a great way going forward.

There's no need for a clean-room implementation, just take what you can and replace what's depending on Tango.

It's all Boost licensed.

-- 
/Jacob Carlborg

On Feb 15, 2013, at 3:29 AM, Jacob Carlborg <doob@me.com> wrote:

> On 2013-02-15 07:29, Dmitry Olshansky wrote:
> 
>> It could then the only roadblock is dependency on Tango.
>> The only problem I had with serialization is that it's like using huge
>> module to do the "dump this struct in JSON" kind of thing that's doable
>> in 20-30 lines.
> 
> It's not huge. I already had the serialization library available. Not using it would be stupid.
> 
> Having 30k+ lines of code just to get the time _is_ huge.
> 
>> In the option b Anyway the comment about porting from Tango still applies.
> 
> Just because you guys are too stubborn to include it in the distribution.

Tango is distributed under an incompatible license. A license that unfortunately can't be changed because many of the Tango authors are MIA. There's nothing political involved. And if the dependency is just on a JSON module, that's easy to resolve. We have a new std.json module in the queue anyway, don't we?

On 2013-02-15 15:28, Steven Schveighoffer wrote:

> That is an overstatement.  I'm pretty sure people are interested in
> having serialization in Phobos.

It's been in the review queue for over two years. I've pushed for it a couple of times to get it reviewed but got no answers. I've basically given up now.

-- 
/Jacob Carlborg

On Fri, 15 Feb 2013 11:14:56 -0500, Jacob Carlborg <doob@me.com> wrote:

> On 2013-02-15 15:28, Steven Schveighoffer wrote:
>
>> That is an overstatement.  I'm pretty sure people are interested in
>> having serialization in Phobos.
>
> It's been in the review queue for over two years. I've pushed for it a couple of times to get it reviewed but got no answers. I've basically given up now.

This is the last "push" I can find from you:

http://forum.dlang.org/post/jcmp6s$1cs5$1@digitalmars.com

Doesn't sound ready.

On trello, it's still listed as "in development."  I'm pretty sure nobody is using that, though.

If you have given up, I suppose there is no point in asking if you are still interested in having it reviewed, but it sure doesn't sound like it was ever "in" the review queue.  Quite possible I missed the message that says "OK, can we review orange? it is ready".

-Steve

On Friday, 15 February 2013 at 16:14:57 UTC, Jacob Carlborg wrote:
> On 2013-02-15 15:28, Steven Schveighoffer wrote:
>
>> That is an overstatement.  I'm pretty sure people are interested in
>> having serialization in Phobos.
>
> It's been in the review queue for over two years. I've pushed for it a couple of times to get it reviewed but got no answers. I've basically given up now.

It's not listed in the review queue on the wiki:

http://wiki.dlang.org/Review_Queue

Well, it is now, since I added it. Also relabeled it std.serialization,
because I think std.orange (or just orange) might be a tad too opaque
for newcomers. Mayhap I shouldn't have added it (there should be a wiki
page about this), but done is done. If I can figure out what's required
to be a review manager, I guess I could shoulder that burden too.

On Tuesday, 12 February 2013 at 12:38:55 UTC, Jacob Carlborg wrote:

> * XML - The XML module is slow and has a cumbersome API

For XML I suggest trying http://www.dsource.org/projects/xmlp/wiki
I tend not to like working in XML and this library doesn't change that, but if someone is interested in getting XML added to Phobos I highly suggest using this and writing bugs for improvements so that we can get a library that is satisfactory into Phobos.


As for serialization I wouldn't say no one is interested:
http://wiki.dlang.org/Review_Queue
Personally I'm just not in a good position to review and give feedback.