It's great that the Tango team is bundling Tangobos with Tango these days.  But the Tangobos page on dsource[1] still basically says it's a band-aid only intended to help ease the transition from Phobos to Tango.  It takes the tone that Phobos is crap and you're going to "change sides" once you get your superior library working.

That's very different from the story I hear Kris preaching around here lately.  Which is: with Tangobos you can have the best of both worlds.

Also, just a marketing thing, but I would suggest that the wording on the Tangobos site be changed from emphasizing "compatibility layer" to "a port of Phobos".  It mentions in passing that it is basically a port, but I would make that the primary description.  The reason I think the "compatibility layer" description is bad is because "layer" implies slow and bug-prone.   Slow because it implies theres some extra layer of indirection there translating Phobos calls into Tango calls (which there isn't for 99% of it IIUC), and bug prone because trying to emulate API Y using API X usually reveals a number of "impedance mismatches" in practice.  It's a port of Phobos.  Or you could say a copy of Phobos with minor adjustments to make the code work with Tango.  "compatibility layer" sounds bloated.

Also the description paints the relationship between Tangobos and Tango as an uneasy one, which I don't think is the case (at least not anymore).


--bb
[1] http://www.dsource.org/projects/tangobos/

"Bill Baxter" <dnewsgroup@billbaxter.com> wrote in message news:fniheh$1a0$1@digitalmars.com...
> It's great that the Tango team is bundling Tangobos with Tango these days. But the Tangobos page on dsource[1] still basically says it's a band-aid only intended to help ease the transition from Phobos to Tango. It takes the tone that Phobos is crap and you're going to "change sides" once you get your superior library working.

Then perhaps you could help to resolve that? There's always room for another willing pair of hands, and the doc is in a Wiki so that anyone and everyone can easily participate ;)

> Also, just a marketing thing, but I would suggest that the wording on the Tangobos site be changed from emphasizing "compatibility layer" to "a port of Phobos".  It mentions in passing that it is basically a port, but I would make that the primary description.  The reason I think the "compatibility layer" description is bad is because "layer" implies slow and bug-prone.   Slow because it implies theres some extra layer of indirection there translating Phobos calls into Tango calls (which there isn't for 99% of it IIUC), and bug prone because trying to emulate API Y using API X usually reveals a number of "impedance mismatches" in practice.  It's a port of Phobos.  Or you could say a copy of Phobos with minor adjustments to make the code work with Tango.  "compatibility layer" sounds bloated.

Seems like a good approach. Would you mind fixing the Wiki page, please? That would be a big help

Kris wrote:
> "Bill Baxter" <dnewsgroup@billbaxter.com> wrote in message news:fniheh$1a0$1@digitalmars.com...
>> It's great that the Tango team is bundling Tangobos with Tango these days. But the Tangobos page on dsource[1] still basically says it's a band-aid only intended to help ease the transition from Phobos to Tango. It takes the tone that Phobos is crap and you're going to "change sides" once you get your superior library working.
> 
> Then perhaps you could help to resolve that? There's always room for another willing pair of hands, and the doc is in a Wiki so that anyone and everyone can easily participate ;)
> 
>> Also, just a marketing thing, but I would suggest that the wording on the Tangobos site be changed from emphasizing "compatibility layer" to "a port of Phobos".  It mentions in passing that it is basically a port, but I would make that the primary description.  The reason I think the "compatibility layer" description is bad is because "layer" implies slow and bug-prone.   Slow because it implies theres some extra layer of indirection there translating Phobos calls into Tango calls (which there isn't for 99% of it IIUC), and bug prone because trying to emulate API Y using API X usually reveals a number of "impedance mismatches" in practice.  It's a port of Phobos.  Or you could say a copy of Phobos with minor adjustments to make the code work with Tango.  "compatibility layer" sounds bloated.
> 
> Seems like a good approach. Would you mind fixing the Wiki page, please? That would be a big help 

Sure, if it is ok for me to do so.  It's still basically Gregor's page though, isn't it?  You sure it's ok to rewrite it?

--bb

"Bill Baxter" <dnewsgroup@billbaxter.com> wrote in message news:fnimhu$cs6$1@digitalmars.com...
> Kris wrote:
>> "Bill Baxter" <dnewsgroup@billbaxter.com> wrote in message news:fniheh$1a0$1@digitalmars.com...
>>> It's great that the Tango team is bundling Tangobos with Tango these days. But the Tangobos page on dsource[1] still basically says it's a band-aid only intended to help ease the transition from Phobos to Tango. It takes the tone that Phobos is crap and you're going to "change sides" once you get your superior library working.
>>
>> Then perhaps you could help to resolve that? There's always room for another willing pair of hands, and the doc is in a Wiki so that anyone and everyone can easily participate ;)
>>
>>> Also, just a marketing thing, but I would suggest that the wording on the Tangobos site be changed from emphasizing "compatibility layer" to "a port of Phobos".  It mentions in passing that it is basically a port, but I would make that the primary description.  The reason I think the "compatibility layer" description is bad is because "layer" implies slow and bug-prone.   Slow because it implies theres some extra layer of indirection there translating Phobos calls into Tango calls (which there isn't for 99% of it IIUC), and bug prone because trying to emulate API Y using API X usually reveals a number of "impedance mismatches" in practice.  It's a port of Phobos.  Or you could say a copy of Phobos with minor adjustments to make the code work with Tango.  "compatibility layer" sounds bloated.
>>
>> Seems like a good approach. Would you mind fixing the Wiki page, please? That would be a big help
>
> Sure, if it is ok for me to do so.  It's still basically Gregor's page though, isn't it?  You sure it's ok to rewrite it?


hehe ... yeah, he may or may not appreciate that :)

Here's a dedicated page in the Tango Wiki instead: http://dsource.org/projects/tango/wiki/TangobosInfo

I understand you need to have a dsource user-id to access the wiki. If you can hook up on the irc channels, it might be simpler to set things up (we need to white-list your id, for example).

Kris wrote:
> "Bill Baxter" <dnewsgroup@billbaxter.com> wrote in message news:fnimhu$cs6$1@digitalmars.com...
>> Kris wrote:

>> Sure, if it is ok for me to do so.  It's still basically Gregor's page though, isn't it?  You sure it's ok to rewrite it?
> 
> 
> hehe ... yeah, he may or may not appreciate that :)

Ok then.  Won't do that.  I thought it was possible you and Gregor might have made some agreement that the Tango team was basically "in charge" of Tangobos now.

> Here's a dedicated page in the Tango Wiki instead: http://dsource.org/projects/tango/wiki/TangobosInfo
> 
> I understand you need to have a dsource user-id to access the wiki. If you can hook up on the irc channels, it might be simpler to set things up (we need to white-list your id, for example). 

No probs.  Looks like I'm already on the "white-list".

--bb

Bill Baxter wrote:
> Kris wrote:
>> "Bill Baxter" <dnewsgroup@billbaxter.com> wrote in message news:fniheh$1a0$1@digitalmars.com...
>>> It's great that the Tango team is bundling Tangobos with Tango these days. But the Tangobos page on dsource[1] still basically says it's a band-aid only intended to help ease the transition from Phobos to Tango. It takes the tone that Phobos is crap and you're going to "change sides" once you get your superior library working.
>>
>> Then perhaps you could help to resolve that? There's always room for another willing pair of hands, and the doc is in a Wiki so that anyone and everyone can easily participate ;)
>>
>>> Also, just a marketing thing, but I would suggest that the wording on the Tangobos site be changed from emphasizing "compatibility layer" to "a port of Phobos".  It mentions in passing that it is basically a port, but I would make that the primary description.  The reason I think the "compatibility layer" description is bad is because "layer" implies slow and bug-prone.   Slow because it implies theres some extra layer of indirection there translating Phobos calls into Tango calls (which there isn't for 99% of it IIUC), and bug prone because trying to emulate API Y using API X usually reveals a number of "impedance mismatches" in practice.  It's a port of Phobos.  Or you could say a copy of Phobos with minor adjustments to make the code work with Tango.  "compatibility layer" sounds bloated.
>>
>> Seems like a good approach. Would you mind fixing the Wiki page, please? That would be a big help 
> 
> Sure, if it is ok for me to do so.  It's still basically Gregor's page though, isn't it?  You sure it's ok to rewrite it?
> 
> --bb

I would be downright /thrilled/ if somebody took that page from me.

 - Gregor Richards

Gregor Richards wrote:
> Bill Baxter wrote:
>> Kris wrote:
>>> "Bill Baxter" <dnewsgroup@billbaxter.com> wrote in message news:fniheh$1a0$1@digitalmars.com...
>>>> It's great that the Tango team is bundling Tangobos with Tango these days. But the Tangobos page on dsource[1] still basically says it's a band-aid only intended to help ease the transition from Phobos to Tango. It takes the tone that Phobos is crap and you're going to "change sides" once you get your superior library working.
>>>
>>> Then perhaps you could help to resolve that? There's always room for another willing pair of hands, and the doc is in a Wiki so that anyone and everyone can easily participate ;)
>>>
>>>> Also, just a marketing thing, but I would suggest that the wording on the Tangobos site be changed from emphasizing "compatibility layer" to "a port of Phobos".  It mentions in passing that it is basically a port, but I would make that the primary description.  The reason I think the "compatibility layer" description is bad is because "layer" implies slow and bug-prone.   Slow because it implies theres some extra layer of indirection there translating Phobos calls into Tango calls (which there isn't for 99% of it IIUC), and bug prone because trying to emulate API Y using API X usually reveals a number of "impedance mismatches" in practice.  It's a port of Phobos.  Or you could say a copy of Phobos with minor adjustments to make the code work with Tango.  "compatibility layer" sounds bloated.
>>>
>>> Seems like a good approach. Would you mind fixing the Wiki page, please? That would be a big help 
>>
>> Sure, if it is ok for me to do so.  It's still basically Gregor's page though, isn't it?  You sure it's ok to rewrite it?
>>
>> --bb
> 
> I would be downright /thrilled/ if somebody took that page from me.
> 
>  - Gregor Richards

Ok. Right-o then.

In the mean time I wrote this here:
  http://dsource.org/projects/tango/wiki/TangobosInfo

I have no idea if any of it is true, but at least it is what I *wish* were true.

Please check over it for factual errors if you have a sec.  Thanks.

--bb

Bill Baxter wrote:

> Gregor Richards wrote:
>> Bill Baxter wrote:
>>> Kris wrote:
>>>> "Bill Baxter" <dnewsgroup@billbaxter.com> wrote in message news:fniheh$1a0$1@digitalmars.com...
>>>>> It's great that the Tango team is bundling Tangobos with Tango these days. But the Tangobos page on dsource[1] still basically says it's a band-aid only intended to help ease the transition from Phobos to Tango. It takes the tone that Phobos is crap and you're going to "change sides" once you get your superior library working.
>>>>
>>>> Then perhaps you could help to resolve that? There's always room for another willing pair of hands, and the doc is in a Wiki so that anyone and everyone can easily participate ;)
>>>>
>>>>> Also, just a marketing thing, but I would suggest that the wording on the Tangobos site be changed from emphasizing "compatibility layer" to "a port of Phobos".  It mentions in passing that it is basically a port, but I would make that the primary description. The reason I think the "compatibility layer" description is bad is because "layer" implies slow and bug-prone.   Slow because it implies theres some extra layer of indirection there translating Phobos calls into Tango calls (which there isn't for 99% of it IIUC), and bug prone because trying to emulate API Y using API X usually reveals a number of "impedance mismatches" in practice. It's a port of Phobos.  Or you could say a copy of Phobos with minor adjustments to make the code work with Tango.  "compatibility layer" sounds bloated.
>>>>
>>>> Seems like a good approach. Would you mind fixing the Wiki page, please? That would be a big help
>>>
>>> Sure, if it is ok for me to do so.  It's still basically Gregor's page though, isn't it?  You sure it's ok to rewrite it?
>>>
>>> --bb
>> 
>> I would be downright /thrilled/ if somebody took that page from me.
>> 
>>  - Gregor Richards
> 
> Ok. Right-o then.

You're also added as a dev in case you would like to try your hand at remaining incompatibilities.

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

Lars Ivar Igesund wrote:
> Bill Baxter wrote:
> 
>> Gregor Richards wrote:
>>> Bill Baxter wrote:
>>>> Kris wrote:
>>>>> "Bill Baxter" <dnewsgroup@billbaxter.com> wrote in message
>>>>> news:fniheh$1a0$1@digitalmars.com...
>>>>>> It's great that the Tango team is bundling Tangobos with Tango these
>>>>>> days. But the Tangobos page on dsource[1] still basically says it's
>>>>>> a band-aid only intended to help ease the transition from Phobos to
>>>>>> Tango. It takes the tone that Phobos is crap and you're going to
>>>>>> "change sides" once you get your superior library working.
>>>>> Then perhaps you could help to resolve that? There's always room for
>>>>> another willing pair of hands, and the doc is in a Wiki so that
>>>>> anyone and everyone can easily participate ;)
>>>>>
>>>>>> Also, just a marketing thing, but I would suggest that the wording
>>>>>> on the Tangobos site be changed from emphasizing "compatibility
>>>>>> layer" to "a port of Phobos".  It mentions in passing that it is
>>>>>> basically a port, but I would make that the primary description.
>>>>>> The reason I think the "compatibility layer" description is bad is
>>>>>> because "layer" implies slow and bug-prone.   Slow because it
>>>>>> implies theres some extra layer of indirection there translating
>>>>>> Phobos calls into Tango calls (which there isn't for 99% of it
>>>>>> IIUC), and bug prone because trying to emulate API Y using API X
>>>>>> usually reveals a number of "impedance mismatches" in practice.
>>>>>> It's a port of Phobos.  Or you could say a copy of Phobos with minor
>>>>>> adjustments to make the code work with Tango.  "compatibility layer"
>>>>>> sounds bloated.
>>>>> Seems like a good approach. Would you mind fixing the Wiki page,
>>>>> please? That would be a big help
>>>> Sure, if it is ok for me to do so.  It's still basically Gregor's page
>>>> though, isn't it?  You sure it's ok to rewrite it?
>>>>
>>>> --bb
>>> I would be downright /thrilled/ if somebody took that page from me.
>>>
>>>  - Gregor Richards
>> Ok. Right-o then.
> 
> You're also added as a dev in case you would like to try your hand at
> remaining incompatibilities.

Is there a list of those anywhere? (remaining incompatibilities, I mean)

--bb

Bill Baxter wrote:

> Lars Ivar Igesund wrote:
>> Bill Baxter wrote:
>> 
>>> Gregor Richards wrote:
>>>> Bill Baxter wrote:
>>>>> Kris wrote:
>>>>>> "Bill Baxter" <dnewsgroup@billbaxter.com> wrote in message news:fniheh$1a0$1@digitalmars.com...
>>>>>>> It's great that the Tango team is bundling Tangobos with Tango these days. But the Tangobos page on dsource[1] still basically says it's a band-aid only intended to help ease the transition from Phobos to Tango. It takes the tone that Phobos is crap and you're going to "change sides" once you get your superior library working.
>>>>>> Then perhaps you could help to resolve that? There's always room for another willing pair of hands, and the doc is in a Wiki so that anyone and everyone can easily participate ;)
>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Also, just a marketing thing, but I would suggest that the wording on the Tangobos site be changed from emphasizing "compatibility layer" to "a port of Phobos".  It mentions in passing that it is basically a port, but I would make that the primary description. The reason I think the "compatibility layer" description is bad is because "layer" implies slow and bug-prone.   Slow because it implies theres some extra layer of indirection there translating Phobos calls into Tango calls (which there isn't for 99% of it IIUC), and bug prone because trying to emulate API Y using API X usually reveals a number of "impedance mismatches" in practice. It's a port of Phobos.  Or you could say a copy of Phobos with minor adjustments to make the code work with Tango.  "compatibility layer" sounds bloated.
>>>>>> Seems like a good approach. Would you mind fixing the Wiki page, please? That would be a big help
>>>>> Sure, if it is ok for me to do so.  It's still basically Gregor's page though, isn't it?  You sure it's ok to rewrite it?
>>>>>
>>>>> --bb
>>>> I would be downright /thrilled/ if somebody took that page from me.
>>>>
>>>>  - Gregor Richards
>>> Ok. Right-o then.
>> 
>> You're also added as a dev in case you would like to try your hand at remaining incompatibilities.
> 
> Is there a list of those anywhere? (remaining incompatibilities, I mean)

Beyond std.signals and std.thread (which will be hard to fix), I don't know of any. Actual users may be able to provide better answers.

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