Jarrod Wrote:

> On Wed, 23 Jan 2008 21:52:19 -0500, Daniel wrote:
> 
> > Walter is, and ought to be, focusing his efforts on the language more than the libraries.
> > 
> > Oddly, I would argue that all libraries are simply stop-gap fixes for missing or poorly implemented language features; indeed most programming code tends to be.
> > 
> > However, D has phobos, there was mango, now tango, and work has been done on a tangobos.  The fact that the library keeps changing shows that D's language features actually have an impact, as they frequently replace or integrate library features.
> > 
> > Regards,
> > Dan
> 
> To claim Phobos is not a part of D is to claim the C stdlib is not a part
> of C.
> Phobos is a part of D, and it's a very important part of D too (hell we
> can't even have classes without Object.d). Walter is the father of Phobos
> and although he allows others to contribute to it, he is the one who
> decides what to add to Phobos and how to add it. Yes, Walter should focus
> on developing the language of course, but he also has to decide what the
> *standard* library is going to be since he is after all the head project
> manager of both Phobos and D.
> I emphasize the word *standard* because right now, we don't have a
> standard. Unless you include a bunch of versioning/mixin hacks, we
> currently have code that won't even compile on different workstations
> because of two very different core libraries that are totally
> incompatible. So now we're stuck with an annoying rift.
> Tangobos is a step in the right direction to get compatibility back, but
> at the moment it's just a band-aid solution.
> 
> All I want to see is a standard, be it Phobos with all the cool stuff Tango adds, or a Tango with all the nice things Phobos has. But this isn't going to happen unless one of the dev teams concedes already :|

Fair assessment.  I think Tango is more open source and takes the load off Walter.  It's just simply too heavyweight for me to dare use it; so library developers go to Tango and library users still go to Phobos.  : p

That guy who developed the cool Agner Fog optimized mixin algorithm should get access to an AST.  I'm sure he could write a kick-ass lib.

Regards,
Dan

Dan wrote:

> Jarrod Wrote:
> 
>> On Wed, 23 Jan 2008 21:52:19 -0500, Daniel wrote:
>> 
>> > Walter is, and ought to be, focusing his efforts on the language more than the libraries.
>> > 
>> > Oddly, I would argue that all libraries are simply stop-gap fixes for missing or poorly implemented language features; indeed most programming code tends to be.
>> > 
>> > However, D has phobos, there was mango, now tango, and work has been done on a tangobos.  The fact that the library keeps changing shows that D's language features actually have an impact, as they frequently replace or integrate library features.
>> > 
>> > Regards,
>> > Dan
>> 
>> To claim Phobos is not a part of D is to claim the C stdlib is not a part
>> of C.
>> Phobos is a part of D, and it's a very important part of D too (hell we
>> can't even have classes without Object.d). Walter is the father of Phobos
>> and although he allows others to contribute to it, he is the one who
>> decides what to add to Phobos and how to add it. Yes, Walter should focus
>> on developing the language of course, but he also has to decide what the
>> *standard* library is going to be since he is after all the head project
>> manager of both Phobos and D.
>> I emphasize the word *standard* because right now, we don't have a
>> standard. Unless you include a bunch of versioning/mixin hacks, we
>> currently have code that won't even compile on different workstations
>> because of two very different core libraries that are totally
>> incompatible. So now we're stuck with an annoying rift.
>> Tangobos is a step in the right direction to get compatibility back, but
>> at the moment it's just a band-aid solution.
>> 
>> All I want to see is a standard, be it Phobos with all the cool stuff Tango adds, or a Tango with all the nice things Phobos has. But this isn't going to happen unless one of the dev teams concedes already :|
> 
> Fair assessment.  I think Tango is more open source and takes the load off Walter.  It's just simply too heavyweight for me to dare use it; so library developers go to Tango and library users still go to Phobos.  : p

I am just curious, what do you consider to be too heavyweight about Tango? Or why do you think it is too heavyweight?

-- 
Lars Ivar Igesund
blog at http://larsivi.net
DSource, #d.tango & #D: larsivi
Dancing the Tango

Dan wrote:
> Jarrod Wrote:
>>
>> All I want to see is a standard, be it Phobos with all the cool stuff Tango adds, or a Tango with all the nice things Phobos has. But this isn't going to happen unless one of the dev teams concedes already :|
> 
> Fair assessment.  I think Tango is more open source and takes the load off Walter.  It's just simply too heavyweight for me to dare use it; so library developers go to Tango and library users still go to Phobos.  : p

Could you explain?  Tango was built from the ground up to be completely
modular, so I'm not sure I understand the opinion that it's heavyweight.
 One of the original design parameters was that it be as suitable for
kernel development as for application development, and I believe it's
accomplished this goal quite well.

> That guy who developed the cool Agner Fog optimized mixin algorithm should get access to an AST.  I'm sure he could write a kick-ass lib.

Once const is settled, I think we'll begin to see more of the 2.0 features Walter promised :-)


Sean

On Fri, 25 Jan 2008 18:57:17 +0100, Lars Ivar Igesund wrote:

> Dan wrote:
> 
>> Jarrod Wrote:
>> 
>>> On Wed, 23 Jan 2008 21:52:19 -0500, Daniel wrote:
>>> 
>>> > Walter is, and ought to be, focusing his efforts on the language more than the libraries.
>>> > 
>>> > Oddly, I would argue that all libraries are simply stop-gap fixes for missing or poorly implemented language features; indeed most programming code tends to be.
>>> > 
>>> > However, D has phobos, there was mango, now tango, and work has been done on a tangobos.  The fact that the library keeps changing shows that D's language features actually have an impact, as they frequently replace or integrate library features.
>>> > 
>>> > Regards,
>>> > Dan
>>> 
>>> To claim Phobos is not a part of D is to claim the C stdlib is not a
>>> part of C.
>>> Phobos is a part of D, and it's a very important part of D too (hell
>>> we can't even have classes without Object.d). Walter is the father of
>>> Phobos and although he allows others to contribute to it, he is the
>>> one who decides what to add to Phobos and how to add it. Yes, Walter
>>> should focus on developing the language of course, but he also has to
>>> decide what the *standard* library is going to be since he is after
>>> all the head project manager of both Phobos and D.
>>> I emphasize the word *standard* because right now, we don't have a
>>> standard. Unless you include a bunch of versioning/mixin hacks, we
>>> currently have code that won't even compile on different workstations
>>> because of two very different core libraries that are totally
>>> incompatible. So now we're stuck with an annoying rift. Tangobos is a
>>> step in the right direction to get compatibility back, but at the
>>> moment it's just a band-aid solution.
>>> 
>>> All I want to see is a standard, be it Phobos with all the cool stuff Tango adds, or a Tango with all the nice things Phobos has. But this isn't going to happen unless one of the dev teams concedes already :|
>> 
>> Fair assessment.  I think Tango is more open source and takes the load off Walter.  It's just simply too heavyweight for me to dare use it; so library developers go to Tango and library users still go to Phobos.  : p
> 
> I am just curious, what do you consider to be too heavyweight about Tango? Or why do you think it is too heavyweight?

I still have yet to develop in Tango (My book should be here within the week), but I think I know what Dan is trying to say by heavyweight.

It is not related to the size or speed of the code, as Sean was questioning, but in the use. The best comparison I can think of is that it is like going from C to Java. (I'm not saying Tango is like java) The phobos library is very procedural, you you import your module and call your functions. Tango is Object based, import, create object/call object to do something for you. There is a sense of simplicity when you don't use objects. That is frankly one of the reasons I have not moved to Tango yet.

Jesse Phillips wrote:

> On Fri, 25 Jan 2008 18:57:17 +0100, Lars Ivar Igesund wrote:
> 
>> Dan wrote:
>> 
>>> Jarrod Wrote:
>>> 
>>>> On Wed, 23 Jan 2008 21:52:19 -0500, Daniel wrote:
>>>> 
>>>> > Walter is, and ought to be, focusing his efforts on the language more than the libraries.
>>>> > 
>>>> > Oddly, I would argue that all libraries are simply stop-gap fixes for missing or poorly implemented language features; indeed most programming code tends to be.
>>>> > 
>>>> > However, D has phobos, there was mango, now tango, and work has been done on a tangobos.  The fact that the library keeps changing shows that D's language features actually have an impact, as they frequently replace or integrate library features.
>>>> > 
>>>> > Regards,
>>>> > Dan
>>>> 
>>>> To claim Phobos is not a part of D is to claim the C stdlib is not a
>>>> part of C.
>>>> Phobos is a part of D, and it's a very important part of D too (hell
>>>> we can't even have classes without Object.d). Walter is the father of
>>>> Phobos and although he allows others to contribute to it, he is the
>>>> one who decides what to add to Phobos and how to add it. Yes, Walter
>>>> should focus on developing the language of course, but he also has to
>>>> decide what the *standard* library is going to be since he is after
>>>> all the head project manager of both Phobos and D.
>>>> I emphasize the word *standard* because right now, we don't have a
>>>> standard. Unless you include a bunch of versioning/mixin hacks, we
>>>> currently have code that won't even compile on different workstations
>>>> because of two very different core libraries that are totally
>>>> incompatible. So now we're stuck with an annoying rift. Tangobos is a
>>>> step in the right direction to get compatibility back, but at the
>>>> moment it's just a band-aid solution.
>>>> 
>>>> All I want to see is a standard, be it Phobos with all the cool stuff Tango adds, or a Tango with all the nice things Phobos has. But this isn't going to happen unless one of the dev teams concedes already :|
>>> 
>>> Fair assessment.  I think Tango is more open source and takes the load off Walter.  It's just simply too heavyweight for me to dare use it; so library developers go to Tango and library users still go to Phobos.  : p
>> 
>> I am just curious, what do you consider to be too heavyweight about Tango? Or why do you think it is too heavyweight?
> 
> I still have yet to develop in Tango (My book should be here within the week), but I think I know what Dan is trying to say by heavyweight.
> 
> It is not related to the size or speed of the code, as Sean was questioning, but in the use. The best comparison I can think of is that it is like going from C to Java. (I'm not saying Tango is like java) The phobos library is very procedural, you you import your module and call your functions. Tango is Object based, import, create object/call object to do something for you. There is a sense of simplicity when you don't use objects. That is frankly one of the reasons I have not moved to Tango yet.

I know there are a few places in Tango where an additional line may be needed (and many where you'll need quite a few less), but without exact examples of what people think is a problem, it is hard to make qualified decisions on where to make improvements.

-- 
Lars Ivar Igesund
blog at http://larsivi.net
DSource, #d.tango & #D: larsivi
Dancing the Tango

Lars Ivar Igesund wrote:
> I know there are a few places in Tango where an additional line may be
> needed (and many where you'll need quite a few less), but without exact
> examples of what people think is a problem, it is hard to make qualified
> decisions on where to make improvements.
> 

Not to be negative, but I think no matter how many tests/examples/whatever show that Tango is comparable or better in speed and efficiency to Phobos, the stigma of a feature-rich, strongly abstracted/modular standard library reminds of Java and .NET . I think the fear is less based on logic and more based on association between a modular standard library and VM-based languages.

Robert Fraser wrote:
> Lars Ivar Igesund wrote:
>> I know there are a few places in Tango where an additional line may be
>> needed (and many where you'll need quite a few less), but without exact
>> examples of what people think is a problem, it is hard to make qualified
>> decisions on where to make improvements.
>>
> 
> Not to be negative, but I think no matter how many tests/examples/whatever show that Tango is comparable or better in speed and efficiency to Phobos, the stigma of a feature-rich, strongly abstracted/modular standard library reminds of Java and .NET . I think the fear is less based on logic and more based on association between a modular standard library and VM-based languages.

I shouldn't write long sentences; I tend to get lost halfway though.

Lars Ivar Igesund Wrote:

> Jesse Phillips wrote:
> > It is not related to the size or speed of the code, as Sean was questioning, but in the use. The best comparison I can think of is that it is like going from C to Java. (I'm not saying Tango is like java) The phobos library is very procedural, you you import your module and call your functions. Tango is Object based, import, create object/call object to do something for you. There is a sense of simplicity when you don't use objects. That is frankly one of the reasons I have not moved to Tango yet.
> 
> I know there are a few places in Tango where an additional line may be needed (and many where you'll need quite a few less), but without exact examples of what people think is a problem, it is hard to make qualified decisions on where to make improvements.

Maybe I'm misusing the library, but I know I've had to create formatting objects (print!(char)?), even for common cases.

Robert Fraser wrote:

> Lars Ivar Igesund wrote:
>> I know there are a few places in Tango where an additional line may be needed (and many where you'll need quite a few less), but without exact examples of what people think is a problem, it is hard to make qualified decisions on where to make improvements.
>> 
> 
> Not to be negative, but I think no matter how many tests/examples/whatever show that Tango is comparable or better in speed and efficiency to Phobos, the stigma of a feature-rich, strongly abstracted/modular standard library reminds of Java and .NET . I think the fear is less based on logic and more based on association between a modular standard library and VM-based languages.

Yes, this is a comfort zone thing, and not something we can or intend to do much with. However, my feeling (since feeling seems to be an important keyword here) is that some may use their general discomfort as a critique towards Tango, without quantifying (or not even having anything to quantify beyond feeling) it. I have to take this to mean that beyond certain details that could be improved, there isn't an overall problem with Tango per se, it is just about face value alone. Assuming I'm correct at this aspect, I hope to avoid too much discussion on it in the future.

Specific issues or opinions on specific features / decisions are quite the different beast though.

-- 
Lars Ivar Igesund
blog at http://larsivi.net
DSource, #d.tango & #D: larsivi
Dancing the Tango

Robert Fraser, el 25 de enero a las 17:31 me escribiste:
> Lars Ivar Igesund wrote:
> >I know there are a few places in Tango where an additional line may be needed (and many where you'll need quite a few less), but without exact examples of what people think is a problem, it is hard to make qualified decisions on where to make improvements.
> 
> Not to be negative, but I think no matter how many tests/examples/whatever show that Tango is comparable or better in speed and efficiency to Phobos, the stigma of a feature-rich, strongly abstracted/modular standard library reminds of Java and .NET . I think the fear is less based on logic and more based on association between a modular standard library and VM-based languages.

I second that. Phobos is closer to C/C++ stdlib, Tango to Java/.NET.
I think it would be great to have 2 "compatible" standard libraries. One
minimalist for embeded and such (phobos) and one for "big" (or not that
big) desktop applications (tango). Of course both should be compatible and
it had more sense if the "big" library were a super-set of the "small"
one.

-- 
Leandro Lucarella (luca) | Blog colectivo: http://www.mazziblog.com.ar/blog/
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
GPG Key: 5F5A8D05 (F8CD F9A7 BF00 5431 4145  104C 949E BFB6 5F5A 8D05)
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
¿Cómo estais? ¿Cómo os senteis hoy 29 del membre de 1961 día en que
conmemoreramos la nonésima setima nebulización del martir Peperino
Pómoro junto al Rolo Puente en la ciudad de Jadad?
	-- Peperino Pómoro