Kris wrote:

> 
> 
> It never fails to amaze just how much can be extracted from merely one element on a website :)
> 


Yep, that happens.


> You're right about the picture, though - it was intended purely as a bit of fun at the time (as I recall), and should probably go. Certainly it would be a misconception to paint Tango with a "flighty" brush ... you would have to look very hard indeed to find a more "serious" D language investment anywhere.
> 


I agree. The effort that has gone into Tango is certainly not reflected by that picture.


> On a more personal note (for me) - no significant effort should have to go all true-blue neo-conservative to be considered "serious" about anything in this world, and a bit of self-deprecating humour is hardly out of place in any walk of life (there perhaps ought to be more of that around here sometimes?). It is interesting though, that you picked up on the 'cult' aspect of that picture - IIRC it was chosen at random because it looked /truly/ dorky, not because of anything else. Perhaps people will inevitably see whatever they want to? Ah well, it was comic relief for a period.
> 


Sure, my comparison wasn't meant to endorse a full swing opposite to conservatism (or neo-conservatism, as you put it).  I was just pointing out the differences and how things might come across.  It can go bad either way. :)  I know you are relaxed and fun-loving and would prefer that to any form of false-dignity.  That's good.  The emphasis was merely on appearances that I felt detracted from the image of Tango. That opinion might or might not be shared by anybody else, but I felt I'd mention it (again).

I'm not sure what you are implying by it being "interesting that I picked up on the cult following"... but yes, my senses are quite acute to picking up on cults regardless of what you perceive my worldview to be, if that's what you meant; I'll assume you didn't mean that as a remark concerning my Christian faith.  But, no matter, half the time innuendos on this group are mistakes as a result of the reciever reading too much between the lines.  I'll accept responsibility for this one.

And I haven't anything against well-timed self-deprecating humour... sure that's useful.  But, like many things, there's a time and place for it.  My /personal/ feeling here is that it has outlived its purpose (as you seem to agree).  Since it's just an opinion, you needn't pay any attention to it. :)

And no, my critique was not meant to address anything about the motives behind why the picture was chosen.  I'm sure it was innocent enough and was never meant to promote any sort of "cult" following of Tango. :)


> Please suggest a replacement? Perhaps we should run a little competition?
> 


I have no suggestion at this time, other than to remove it, I suppose.

Leandro Lucarella wrote:
> 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.
> 

I'd rather use Tango for embedded systems development; it's more modular. It's very easy to rip out parts of Tango & still have it compiling, while Phobos is comparatively interdependent.

"John Reimer" <terminal.node@gmail.com> wrote ...
[snip]

> I'm not sure what you are implying by it being "interesting that I picked up on the cult following"... but yes, my senses are quite acute to picking up on cults regardless of what you perceive my worldview to be, if that's what you meant;

oh, not at all -- should probably have said "interesting that anyone would ..." instead (and instead of the dorkiness conveyed). My apologies for being careless

[snip]

> And no, my critique was not meant to address anything about the motives behind why the picture was chosen.  I'm sure it was innocent enough and was never meant to promote any sort of "cult" following of Tango. :)

lol ... right,  potential for a cult-like following, as you describe, would appear to be beyond the realm

Lars Ivar Igesund wrote:
> Bill Baxter wrote:
> 
>> Leandro Lucarella wrote:
>>> 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.
>> However, when it comes to the low-level parts of the library (gc,
>> threading, etc), I don't really see anyone arguing.  Tango's seems to be
>> better.  It seems like those improvements should just be rolled back
>> into Phobos.  Then Tango could go back to being a regular library that
>> doesn't require you to "get religion" first.
> 
> Tango require you to "get religion" ? 

Also, Tango has never been a "regular"
> library, if that means a library without its own runtime.

It was in the Mango days. I don't see any reason why the low-level stuff couldn't replace the Phobos stuff.

John Reimer escribió:
> Kris wrote:
> 
>>
>>
>> It never fails to amaze just how much can be extracted from merely one element on a website :)
>>
> 
> 
> Yep, that happens.
> 
> 
>> You're right about the picture, though - it was intended purely as a bit of fun at the time (as I recall), and should probably go. Certainly it would be a misconception to paint Tango with a "flighty" brush ... you would have to look very hard indeed to find a more "serious" D language investment anywhere.
>>
> 
> 
> I agree. The effort that has gone into Tango is certainly not reflected by that picture.
> 
> 
>> On a more personal note (for me) - no significant effort should have to go all true-blue neo-conservative to be considered "serious" about anything in this world, and a bit of self-deprecating humour is hardly out of place in any walk of life (there perhaps ought to be more of that around here sometimes?). It is interesting though, that you picked up on the 'cult' aspect of that picture - IIRC it was chosen at random because it looked /truly/ dorky, not because of anything else. Perhaps people will inevitably see whatever they want to? Ah well, it was comic relief for a period.
>>
> 
> 
> Sure, my comparison wasn't meant to endorse a full swing opposite to conservatism (or neo-conservatism, as you put it).  I was just pointing out the differences and how things might come across.  It can go bad either way. :)  I know you are relaxed and fun-loving and would prefer that to any form of false-dignity.  That's good.  The emphasis was merely on appearances that I felt detracted from the image of Tango. That opinion might or might not be shared by anybody else, but I felt I'd mention it (again).
> 
> I'm not sure what you are implying by it being "interesting that I picked up on the cult following"... but yes, my senses are quite acute to picking up on cults regardless of what you perceive my worldview to be, if that's what you meant; I'll assume you didn't mean that as a remark concerning my Christian faith.  But, no matter, half the time innuendos on this group are mistakes as a result of the reciever reading too much between the lines.  I'll accept responsibility for this one.
> 
> And I haven't anything against well-timed self-deprecating humour... sure that's useful.  But, like many things, there's a time and place for it.  My /personal/ feeling here is that it has outlived its purpose (as you seem to agree).  Since it's just an opinion, you needn't pay any attention to it. :)
> 
> And no, my critique was not meant to address anything about the motives behind why the picture was chosen.  I'm sure it was innocent enough and was never meant to promote any sort of "cult" following of Tango. :)
> 

I never related that image with any cult. Probably I just didn't remember that part of the movie too well, or some cultural differences weighed in, but I always saw it as a bunch of geeks, and as such, I found it funny.

> 
>> Please suggest a replacement? Perhaps we should run a little competition?
>>
> 
> 
> I have no suggestion at this time, other than to remove it, I suppose.


-- 
Carlos Santander Bernal

Carlos Santander wrote:
> 
> I never related that image with any cult. Probably I just didn't remember that part of the movie too well, or some cultural differences weighed in, but I always saw it as a bunch of geeks, and as such, I found it funny.
> 

It may be a mix of things, including culture, I suppose.  I accept that as a possibility.

But it really didn't look like a group of geeks to me... from the looks of it, this frame from a movie seemed to be representing some sort of alien abductions club (or "cult" :) ) as a sort of satire.  I'm clueless about the actual setting of this movie's representation.

It was obvious that the shot was intended to convey humour, which apparently did not work on me, nor was I able to "adjust" to it over time as is sometimes the case...  I can appreciate that some people found it funny for whatever reason. But given the impression it gave me, I found it more weird than funny, leaving me baffled as to what relationship it had with Tango or it's crew.

And perhaps also, I've always disliked it when people mock other people (no, I'm not being sanctimonious; it actually annoys me).  In this case, I suppose the idea is that the contributors are mocking themselves, so it's "ok"... even if some or most of the contributors did not ask to be mocked :).  Sensitivity to that may or may not be relegated to "cultural" differences.  In the long run, it's good to evaluate the effects of such things in and of themselves.  Naturally, that's not always an easy thing to do.

-JJR

John Reimer Wrote:
> It was obvious that the shot was intended to convey humour, which apparently did not work on me, nor was I able to "adjust" to it over time as is sometimes the case...  I can appreciate that some people found it funny for whatever reason. [snip]

> And perhaps also, I've always disliked it when people mock other people (no, I'm not being sanctimonious; it actually annoys me).  In this case, I suppose the idea is that the contributors are mocking themselves, so it's "ok"... [snip]

....

wow mang.  that is deep.  or something.
I even had to look up "sanctimonious".

in my never-humble opinion, it's best not to care what other people think or do unless it's necessary for first or third party safety.  let them have their fun, and just shrug and grin.

regards,
Dan

Dan wrote:
> John Reimer Wrote:
>> It was obvious that the shot was intended to convey humour, which apparently did not work on me, nor was I able to "adjust" to it over time as is sometimes the case...  I can appreciate that some people found it funny for whatever reason. [snip]
> 
>> And perhaps also, I've always disliked it when people mock other people (no, I'm not being sanctimonious; it actually annoys me).  In this case, I suppose the idea is that the contributors are mocking themselves, so it's "ok"... [snip]
> 
> ....
> 
> wow mang.  that is deep.  or something.
> I even had to look up "sanctimonious".
> 
> in my never-humble opinion, it's best not to care what other people think or do unless it's necessary for first or third party safety.  let them have their fun, and just shrug and grin.
> 
> regards,
> Dan


Uh... okay.  Thanks for sharing your insight.

I suppose the reason I posted was because I do care about what people might think about Tango.  But it truly was a "take it or leave it" offering.

If everybody just shrugged and grinned about everything, perhaps D would not be what it is today?  Even Tango would be no better if the team didn't take /some/ things seriously. :)

-JJR

On Jan 31, 2008 5:12 AM, John Reimer <terminal.node@gmail.com> wrote:
> I'm clueless
> about the actual setting of this movie's representation.

It's from the movie "Dude, Where's my Car?"

If you've seen the movie, the picture becomes hilariously funny. If not ... well, I guess it probably wouldn't make much sense.

It's not the picture you want to worry about - it's the wherabouts of the continuum transfunctioner! At least, if you want the universe to survive! :-)

Janice Caron wrote:
> On Jan 31, 2008 5:12 AM, John Reimer <terminal.node@gmail.com> wrote:
>> I'm clueless
>> about the actual setting of this movie's representation.
> 
> It's from the movie "Dude, Where's my Car?"
> 
> If you've seen the movie, the picture becomes hilariously funny. If
> not ... well, I guess it probably wouldn't make much sense.
> 
> It's not the picture you want to worry about - it's the wherabouts of
> the continuum transfunctioner! At least, if you want the universe to
> survive! :-)


Hmm... that probably is part of the problem.  Understanding the context likely helps carry the humor. :)

-JJR