Walter Bright wrote:

> There are currently several people working on Phobos, so it is far from abandoned. For example, last November saw a raft of major additions to it.
> 
> What I see as the goal for Phobos/Tango is for there to be a compatible core, so that users can mix/match what they need from either library.

Personally, and I think there are many who think like me, a big issue is that there is no standard API with that solution. There is a unified core API but the modules on top of it providing higher level functionality won't be as "standard". This of course does not apply if both phobos and tango is shipped with the compiler in one package, that would yield a standard that programmers can rely on beeing pressent on the system the software will be used on.

Derek Parnell wrote:
> On Fri, 08 Feb 2008 00:17:38 -0800, Walter Bright wrote:
> 
>> There are currently several people working on Phobos, so it is far from abandoned. For example, last November saw a raft of major additions to it.
>>
>> What I see as the goal for Phobos/Tango is for there to be a compatible core, so that users can mix/match what they need from either library.
> 
> Excellent, and thank you.
> 
> What is the process for submitting changes now? 
> 

The people currently who can commit changes are:

Walter Bright
Brad Roberts
Andrei Alexandrescu
Sean Kelley
Janice Caron
Don Clugston

Anyone else can propose changes by submitting the patches to bugzilla. However, the bar is pretty high for that; submissions must contain the following:

1) unittests that prove it works
2) ddoc style documentation (for new functionality)
3) documentation must include sample of use (for new functionality)

If the patches don't include these, please still submit them, but they'll tend to get lower priority because someone else has to complete them. So, generally, the more thorough the patch is, the speedier it will be to get it in.

Also, patches which require a license that is different from the one in the module being patched cannot be accepted.

Tim Burrell wrote:
> I think that your response will be a bit disappointing to some, me
> included.  It doesn't really address those of us who have gone on record
> and stated that the current maintenance schedule of Phobos isn't sufficient.
> 
> Nor does it address the feeling many of us have of being unable to
> contribute to Phobos.
> 
> If last November saw major additions, why have patches to know bugs that
> were submitted prior to then remained ignored?
> 
> I think your idea on having a compatible core for Phobos and Tango is
> great, but how do we get there?

These are all real issues, and need to be taken care of. I don't know what the answer is yet.

Derek Parnell Wrote:

[snip]

> Of course, it would even better if developers could use both libraries in the same application (without a Tangobos layer).


Hiya Derek

Just wanted to clarify that the Tangobos package (from Gregor) is not a 'layer', as you described it above. It is the phobos source code with a handful of minor changes made to it. Folks who download the Tango distro can use both the phobos API and the Tango API side by side, if they choose to do so. There's no thunks, redirects, or other intermediate steps involved that might impede the phobos API.

What's different is this: the underlying phobos runtime components are removed and replaced with the Tango equivalent instead. This includes the GC, typeinfo, Object implementation, threading, and a few others. Some "runtime-heavy" phobos-based code are reasonably likely to execute more efficiently or effectively because of this change.

To be specific, the Tango distro already provides what Walter has noted he would like to see at some point in the future -- both API operating atop a common runtime. This has been available for some time now (basically since Tangobos was created; recently it has been bundled instead, as one of the download options, to make things trivial to setup and use).

Sean has described earlier why it is more effective to run phobos atop of the Tango runtime, rather than the other way around, so I won't rehash that here. Nor will I bore you with why the Tango runtime is often a better choice, since others have already gone over that. Those are implementation details anyway, rather than functional capabilities.

Given all the above it should be clear that developers can already use both libraries, on the same runtime, in the same application -- it's not some future promise ;)

Hope this helps to clarify things?

- Kris

"Christopher Wright" <dhasenan@gmail.com> wrote in message news:fogrsg$1iri$1@digitalmars.com...
> Ameer Armaly wrote:
>> If we can get a systemm for accepting submitions to Phobos going, what if we made Tango a sort of expansion pack on top of it? I.E. Phobos addresses all the basic stuff, and Tango ditches all its standard library-ish code and becomes the "extended library" if you will. The way I see it the standard library should be fairly comprehensive without going in to actual nitches; that ought to be left to whatever expansion pack we put together. Thoughts?
>
> - Tango's low-level stuff is of higher quality than that of Phobos,
> everyone agrees.
> - Most of the time, people are thinking mainly about string manipulation
> stuff and console IO. Tango's IO routines are much faster than those used
> in Phobos.
>
> You want a Phobos-style wrapper around Tango. That's the best you could get.
The point is not to divide the actual code as much as it is to divide the nitches. Take whatever the given library does best, and decide where it should go. If Tango does IO faster, then we should somehow merge that in to phobos. If certain parts of Phobos are too specialized, then they ought to go in to Tango. The specifics of course are left open to debate.

"Walter Bright" <newshound1@digitalmars.com> wrote in message news:foh36t$2519$1@digitalmars.com...
> There are currently several people working on Phobos, so it is far from abandoned. For example, last November saw a raft of major additions to it.
>
> What I see as the goal for Phobos/Tango is for there to be a compatible core, so that users can mix/match what they need from either library.
Could you possibly elaborate on this point? Do you mean for Tango to become an extension lib like I proposed earlier,  for there to be some sort of shared codebase from which the two branch, or possibly sommething totally different I have yet to think about?

Walter Bright Wrote:

> There are currently several people working on Phobos, so it is far from abandoned. For example, last November saw a raft of major additions to it.
> 
> What I see as the goal for Phobos/Tango is for there to be a compatible core, so that users can mix/match what they need from either library.


For those who currently use the Tango/Tangobos package, the above may be causing some confusion. I believe Walter is describing a scenario whereby both the phobos and Tango API operate atop a common 'runtime' library (the core). This is what the Tango + Tangobos combination already provides, hence the potential for confusion.

The distinction, I understand, is that the common core runtime would live within phobos, rather than reside within Tango as it does today. In short, it is the same functionality as what you get with Tangobos/Tango, but with the packaging of the host runtime flipped around.

At least, this reflects my understanding. Hope it helps to clarify things

- Kris

On Fri, 08 Feb 2008 21:18:42 -0500, kris wrote:

> Derek Parnell Wrote:
> 
> [snip]
> 
>> Of course, it would even better if developers could use both libraries in the same application (without a Tangobos layer).
> 
> Hiya Derek
> 
> Just wanted to clarify that the Tangobos package (from Gregor) is not a
> 'layer' ...

Thanks Kris. I was not aware of that. I assumed that it was a wrapper around Tango that made it look like Phobos.

> Hope this helps to clarify things?

It sort of does, but it seems that we now have the 'best of both worlds' with Tangobos, so what will be coming from DigitalMars? Will we then have four options: Tango, Tangobos, 'classic' Phobos and 'modern' Phobos?

-- 
Derek Parnell
Melbourne, Australia
skype: derek.j.parnell

Ameer Armaly wrote:
> The point is not to divide the actual code as much as it is to divide the nitches. Take whatever the given library does best, and decide where it should go. If Tango does IO faster, then we should somehow merge that in to phobos. If certain parts of Phobos are too specialized, then they ought to go in to Tango. The specifics of course are left open to debate. 

So you want Phobos to be a small standard library with Tango providing everything else that people will commonly use. I don't see the point in this, unless Tango starts suffering from its size.

"Derek Parnell" <derek@psych.ward> wrote in ...
> On Fri, 08 Feb 2008 21:18:42 -0500, kris wrote:
>
>> Derek Parnell Wrote:
>>
>> [snip]
>>
>>> Of course, it would even better if developers could use both libraries
>>> in
>>> the same application (without a Tangobos layer).
>>
>> Hiya Derek
>>
>> Just wanted to clarify that the Tangobos package (from Gregor) is not a
>> 'layer' ...
>
> Thanks Kris. I was not aware of that. I assumed that it was a wrapper around Tango that made it look like Phobos.
>
>> Hope this helps to clarify things?
>
> It sort of does, but it seems that we now have the 'best of both worlds' with Tangobos, so what will be coming from DigitalMars? Will we then have four options: Tango, Tangobos, 'classic' Phobos and 'modern' Phobos?


To hazard a guess, perhaps this was the motivation for that recent poll?