Bill Baxter:
> But as a meta-wish I  heartily agree with whoever it was who said the development process needs to be made more open.

I hope it's not wrong to show this link here: http://www.digitalmars.com/webnews/newsgroups.php?art_group=digitalmars.D&article_id=77168

Bye,
bearophile

On Thu, Oct 9, 2008 at 11:22 AM, bearophile <bearophileHUGS@lycos.com> wrote:
> Bill Baxter:
>> But as a meta-wish I  heartily agree with whoever it was who said the development process needs to be made more open.
>
> I hope it's not wrong to show this link here: http://www.digitalmars.com/webnews/newsgroups.php?art_group=digitalmars.D&article_id=77168
>

To those more directly involved: Would I be wrong saying the Phobos/Tango split never would have happened if D had a truly open development process?  I know Sean wanting to experiment with different GCs was one reason for it, but if Sean had been able to get access to the official D runtime to begin with, I suspect he would have designed his extensions in a way that was more compatible with the existing code.  Let me know if I'm way off base there.

--bb

Bill Baxter wrote:
> On Thu, Oct 9, 2008 at 11:22 AM, bearophile <bearophileHUGS@lycos.com> wrote:
>> Bill Baxter:
>>> But as a meta-wish I  heartily agree with whoever it was who said the
>>> development process needs to be made more open.
>> I hope it's not wrong to show this link here:
>> http://www.digitalmars.com/webnews/newsgroups.php?art_group=digitalmars.D&article_id=77168
>>
> 
> To those more directly involved: Would I be wrong saying the
> Phobos/Tango split never would have happened if D had a truly open
> development process?

Possibly.  Ares (a precursor to Tango) was basically created as an attempt to try and coordinate community effort for Phobos submissions. The goals of the project changed over time, but that was the basic inspiration.


Sean

Sean Kelly wrote:
> Bill Baxter wrote:
>> On Thu, Oct 9, 2008 at 11:22 AM, bearophile <bearophileHUGS@lycos.com> wrote:
>>> Bill Baxter:
>>>> But as a meta-wish I  heartily agree with whoever it was who said the
>>>> development process needs to be made more open.
>>> I hope it's not wrong to show this link here:
>>> http://www.digitalmars.com/webnews/newsgroups.php?art_group=digitalmars.D&article_id=77168 
>>
>> To those more directly involved: Would I be wrong saying the
>> Phobos/Tango split never would have happened if D had a truly open
>> development process?
> 
> Possibly.  Ares (a precursor to Tango) was basically created as an attempt to try and coordinate community effort for Phobos submissions. The goals of the project changed over time, but that was the basic inspiration.

I should add, however, that I'm not sure whether the resulting druntime would have existed if Phobos were more open.  I don't think I would have messed with things quite so aggressively if I had actual users and compatibility to worry about ;-)  So things may have worked out for the best anyway.


Sean

On Wed, Oct 8, 2008 at 10:38 PM, Bill Baxter <wbaxter@gmail.com> wrote:
> On Thu, Oct 9, 2008 at 11:22 AM, bearophile <bearophileHUGS@lycos.com> wrote:
>> Bill Baxter:
>>> But as a meta-wish I  heartily agree with whoever it was who said the development process needs to be made more open.
>>
>> I hope it's not wrong to show this link here: http://www.digitalmars.com/webnews/newsgroups.php?art_group=digitalmars.D&article_id=77168
>>
>
> To those more directly involved: Would I be wrong saying the Phobos/Tango split never would have happened if D had a truly open development process?  I know Sean wanting to experiment with different GCs was one reason for it, but if Sean had been able to get access to the official D runtime to begin with, I suspect he would have designed his extensions in a way that was more compatible with the existing code.  Let me know if I'm way off base there.
>
> --bb
>

There probably never would have been a split.  If the community developed (or had a major hand in developing) the standard library, there would have been no reason to create an alternate.

Jarrett Billingsley wrote:
> On Wed, Oct 8, 2008 at 10:38 PM, Bill Baxter <wbaxter@gmail.com> wrote:
>> On Thu, Oct 9, 2008 at 11:22 AM, bearophile <bearophileHUGS@lycos.com> wrote:
>>> Bill Baxter:
>>>> But as a meta-wish I  heartily agree with whoever it was who said the
>>>> development process needs to be made more open.
>>> I hope it's not wrong to show this link here:
>>> http://www.digitalmars.com/webnews/newsgroups.php?art_group=digitalmars.D&article_id=77168
>>>
>> To those more directly involved: Would I be wrong saying the
>> Phobos/Tango split never would have happened if D had a truly open
>> development process?  I know Sean wanting to experiment with different
>> GCs was one reason for it, but if Sean had been able to get access to
>> the official D runtime to begin with, I suspect he would have designed
>> his extensions in a way that was more compatible with the existing
>> code.  Let me know if I'm way off base there.
>>
>> --bb
>>
> 
> There probably never would have been a split.  If the community
> developed (or had a major hand in developing) the standard library,
> there would have been no reason to create an alternate.

The community _was_ playing the major part in developing Phobos. At least in the time I've been involved with D. The problem was, it was incredibly painful to get stuff into it. (Purely for technical reasons, not because of reluctance on Walter's part). So Phobos was almost completely stagnant.

If Phobos had been on dsource a year or two earlier, the split might not have happened.

Bill Baxter pisze:
> On Thu, Oct 9, 2008 at 11:22 AM, bearophile <bearophileHUGS@lycos.com> wrote:
>> Bill Baxter:
>>> But as a meta-wish I  heartily agree with whoever it was who said the
>>> development process needs to be made more open.
>> I hope it's not wrong to show this link here:
>> http://www.digitalmars.com/webnews/newsgroups.php?art_group=digitalmars.D&article_id=77168
>>
> 
> To those more directly involved: Would I be wrong saying the
> Phobos/Tango split never would have happened if D had a truly open
> development process?  I know Sean wanting to experiment with different
> GCs was one reason for it, but if Sean had been able to get access to
> the official D runtime to begin with, I suspect he would have designed
> his extensions in a way that was more compatible with the existing
> code.  Let me know if I'm way off base there.
> 
> --bb

I think the same.

And similar think can happen in nearest future also. LDC (was LLVMDC) is approaching release quality very fast. Who will use DMD then, while you will have better compiler with more bugs fixed than in DMD, better linker and optimizer and more open people working currently on LDC?

This is for D core team to rethink how to cooperate with LDC team, so that community can get best from resources we have. Maintaining obsolete back-end by Walter will be loose-loose situation for everyone.

It might sound like contradiction but it seems that more openness gives more control finally.

BR
Marcin Kuszczak
(aarti_pl)

Aarti_pl wrote:
> Bill Baxter pisze:
>> On Thu, Oct 9, 2008 at 11:22 AM, bearophile <bearophileHUGS@lycos.com> wrote:
>>> Bill Baxter:
>>>> But as a meta-wish I  heartily agree with whoever it was who said the
>>>> development process needs to be made more open.
>>> I hope it's not wrong to show this link here:
>>> http://www.digitalmars.com/webnews/newsgroups.php?art_group=digitalmars.D&article_id=77168 
>>>
>>>
>>
>> To those more directly involved: Would I be wrong saying the
>> Phobos/Tango split never would have happened if D had a truly open
>> development process?  I know Sean wanting to experiment with different
>> GCs was one reason for it, but if Sean had been able to get access to
>> the official D runtime to begin with, I suspect he would have designed
>> his extensions in a way that was more compatible with the existing
>> code.  Let me know if I'm way off base there.
>>
>> --bb
> 
> I think the same.
> 
> And similar think can happen in nearest future also. LDC (was LLVMDC) is approaching release quality very fast. Who will use DMD then, while you will have better compiler with more bugs fixed than in DMD, better linker and optimizer and more open people working currently on LDC?
> 
> This is for D core team to rethink how to cooperate with LDC team, so that community can get best from resources we have. Maintaining obsolete back-end by Walter will be loose-loose situation for everyone.
> 
> It might sound like contradiction but it seems that more openness gives more control finally.
> 
> BR
> Marcin Kuszczak
> (aarti_pl)

I hope so, but realistically LDC only works on x86 Linux and there's a lot of work getting it to work on other platforms (much of this work on LLVM itself instead of just LDC).

Robert Fraser wrote:
> Aarti_pl wrote:
>> Bill Baxter pisze:
>>> On Thu, Oct 9, 2008 at 11:22 AM, bearophile <bearophileHUGS@lycos.com> wrote:
>>>> Bill Baxter:
>>>>> But as a meta-wish I  heartily agree with whoever it was who said the
>>>>> development process needs to be made more open.
>>>> I hope it's not wrong to show this link here:
>>>> http://www.digitalmars.com/webnews/newsgroups.php?art_group=digitalmars.D&article_id=77168 
>>>>
>>>>
>>>
>>> To those more directly involved: Would I be wrong saying the
>>> Phobos/Tango split never would have happened if D had a truly open
>>> development process?  I know Sean wanting to experiment with different
>>> GCs was one reason for it, but if Sean had been able to get access to
>>> the official D runtime to begin with, I suspect he would have designed
>>> his extensions in a way that was more compatible with the existing
>>> code.  Let me know if I'm way off base there.
>>>
>>> --bb
>>
>> I think the same.
>>
>> And similar think can happen in nearest future also. LDC (was LLVMDC) is approaching release quality very fast. Who will use DMD then, while you will have better compiler with more bugs fixed than in DMD, better linker and optimizer and more open people working currently on LDC?
>>
>> This is for D core team to rethink how to cooperate with LDC team, so that community can get best from resources we have. Maintaining obsolete back-end by Walter will be loose-loose situation for everyone.
>>
>> It might sound like contradiction but it seems that more openness gives more control finally.
>>
>> BR
>> Marcin Kuszczak
>> (aarti_pl)
> 
> I hope so, but realistically LDC only works on x86 Linux and there's a lot of work getting it to work on other platforms (much of this work on LLVM itself instead of just LDC).

What do you mean? Are there any significant issues with LLVM itself on the Windows platform?

-- 
Bruno Medeiros - Software Developer, MSc. in CS/E graduate
http://www.prowiki.org/wiki4d/wiki.cgi?BrunoMedeiros#D

Bruno Medeiros wrote:
> Robert Fraser wrote:
>> I hope so, but realistically LDC only works on x86 Linux and there's a lot of work getting it to work on other platforms (much of this work on LLVM itself instead of just LDC).
> 
> What do you mean? Are there any significant issues with LLVM itself on the Windows platform?

According to a recent post to their mailing list, the most significant problem for LLVM on Windows is that most of their developers work on Linux machines or Macs...