Jason House Wrote:

> My understanding is that the D2 port was an effort by one inspired community member. It lived in its own branch and quickly got out of date. Both D2 and this mailing list are completely ignored by the Tango developers. Once D2 stops changing, they may reconsider. As far as I know, however, there is no way to maintain a dual D1/D2 code base, and that makes me worry that the Tango devs will have to choose between D1 and D2.
> 
If I recall it right there are bugs blocking tango port.

Jason House Wrote:

> Walter Bright Wrote:
> 
> > If there's more I can do to make this work, I would like to know what that is.
> 
> I know D does not burden itself with backwards compatibility, but the lack of compatibility has to affect many D projects. There are many D1-only projects that can't be used within D2. When D3 is  started, will we have even more incompatible choices? I have no solution to this issue, but it deserves some thought.
> 
> In the past, I proposed the idea of forward compatibility which would allow a D1 compiler to ignore D2-specific keywords and other minor semantic differences such as invariant()... The idea wasn't 100% compatibility, but rather to allow writing a reasonable subset of D2 that could compile in D1. Maybe a 3rd party tool to do the translation is enough?

I would consider this hardly practical. D1 can't know how D2 is going to be like. D2 can't know how D3 is going to be like. And so on. I would really not like to see a D3 emerging right after D2. To get the language mainstream, we need to focus on one version of it, and stick to that. Together with what it lacks. That way, LDC, GDC and D.NET can get a chance to align, and libraries can get themselves to align. Only when D(2) is fully up and running, with a larger userbase, it is practical to start concidering slight changes to the language in the form of RFCs.

Jason House wrote:
> Walter Bright Wrote:
> 
>> If there's more I can do to make this work, I would like to know
>> what that is.
> 
> I know D does not burden itself with backwards compatibility,

That's not quite correct. I have strongly resisted any changes to D2 that would *silently* break programs. The breaking changes elicit clear messages from the compiler.

> but the
> lack of compatibility has to affect many D projects. There are many
> D1-only projects that can't be used within D2. When D3 is  started,
> will we have even more incompatible choices? I have no solution to
> this issue, but it deserves some thought.
> 
> In the past, I proposed the idea of forward compatibility which would
> allow a D1 compiler to ignore D2-specific keywords and other minor
> semantic differences such as invariant()... The idea wasn't 100%
> compatibility, but rather to allow writing a reasonable subset of D2
> that could compile in D1. Maybe a 3rd party tool to do the
> translation is enough?

The problem is that creates a third language.

Kagamin Wrote:

> yigal chripun Wrote:
> 
> > there is no defined system for the development of D. even MS has a well defined plan for their .net platform. where's the plan for D? where the process to define that plan? Either you need to have a plan or you need to have a community driven process (Java JSRs, Python PEPs).
> 
> How the development plan relates to tango? There's a plan to port tango to D2, though it proved to be troublesome. And I think, tango is supposed to be community driven.

the lack of proper planning relates to everything:
blocking bugs that affect tango for D2, licensing issues - everyone has his own prefered license and there is no central body to manage that (there is a GOOD reason why all GNU code is copyrighted by the FSF), no plan as to what features will be implemented, how and when  (latest example - Bartosz' concurrency design for D which was rejected by Andrei), lack of planning for the standard library user APIs - Andrei rewrote half of phobos - with no regard for integration efforts with tango, and so forth.

It really doesn't matter how good a programmer Andrei is if there is no consideration for the end user in his code. It doesn't matter how fast a car you can build if it doesn't fit on the standard state roads. D feels like patient zero of NIH syndrom where everything is a one man show. no fucking amount of colaboration is even taken into account.

The only person here that undersands this is Don and nobody listens to him, so fucking what if he needs to copy-paste all his code to support the tango-phobos dichotomy, right?

Kagamin wrote:
> If I recall it right there are bugs blocking tango port.

I've fixed all the bugs identified by the Tango team as blocking Tango2. If there are more, please give me the bugzilla numbers.

yigal chripun wrote:
> Walter Bright Wrote:
> 
>> Yigal Chripun wrote:
>>> IMHO, the Tango vs. Phobos licensing issue is the biggest bikeshed color problem in the D realm and the only people that can solve it are the tango devs and walter and co. of which Neither are willing to budge.
>> A lot of fundamental breaking changes were made to Phobos2 to be compatible with Tango. It's now up to Tango to take advantage of that.
> 
> the above reasoning is why the problem exists. "We did our part, go blame the other party".

I do not tell the Tango team what to do. All I can do is get Phobos adjust to accommodate Tango compatibility, which has been done.

On Wed, Jul 01, 2009 at 01:21:58PM -0400, yigal chripun wrote:
> the lack of proper planning relates to everything:

I think D has proper planning. It has a unified guiding vision with Walter Bright and Andrei Alexandrescu. And they discuss it in blogs and on this newsgroup, which usually gets worthless replies.

Their vision is why Phobos 2 is coming together and why D isn't being bloated with every useless feature mentioned in this group.

> blocking bugs that affect tango for D2

Which ones?

> licensing issues - everyone has his own prefered license and there is no central body to manage that

Yes, there is: Walter Bright. There is a GOOD reason why he asks for those public domain statements for all contributions.

> lack of planning for the standard library user APIs - Andrei rewrote half of phobos - with no regard for integration efforts with tango, and so forth.

He rewrote it to all fit in to a unified plan. He made requests for comments on this group several times.


If you guys want more involvement, stop spamming the newsgroup with false or unsupported statements and irrelevant bullshit. Give the big names a good reason to discuss technical subjects with you - an expectation that they'll have to sift through dozens of noise posts isn't that reason.


-- 
Adam D. Ruppe
http://arsdnet.net

Walter Bright Wrote:

> Jason House wrote:
> > Walter Bright Wrote:
> > 
> >> If there's more I can do to make this work, I would like to know what that is.
> > 
> > I know D does not burden itself with backwards compatibility,
> 
> That's not quite correct. I have strongly resisted any changes to D2 that would *silently* break programs. The breaking changes elicit clear messages from the compiler.
> 
> > but the
> > lack of compatibility has to affect many D projects. There are many
> > D1-only projects that can't be used within D2. When D3 is  started,
> > will we have even more incompatible choices? I have no solution to
> > this issue, but it deserves some thought.
> > 
> > In the past, I proposed the idea of forward compatibility which would allow a D1 compiler to ignore D2-specific keywords and other minor semantic differences such as invariant()... The idea wasn't 100% compatibility, but rather to allow writing a reasonable subset of D2 that could compile in D1. Maybe a 3rd party tool to do the translation is enough?
> 
> The problem is that creates a third language.
> 

Please don't let the "forward compatibility" proposal overshadow the other part of my post. Compatibility between D1, D2 (and D3) can be a serious problem for library writers. I have no good solution for it. In some ways, this is at the heart of some divisions in the D community. There are 3 mainstream dialects of D, and they don't interoperate.

yigal chripun Wrote:

> Kagamin Wrote:
> 
> > yigal chripun Wrote:
> > 
> > > there is no defined system for the development of D. even MS has a well defined plan for their .net platform. where's the plan for D? where the process to define that plan? Either you need to have a plan or you need to have a community driven process (Java JSRs, Python PEPs).
> > 
> > How the development plan relates to tango? There's a plan to port tango to D2, though it proved to be troublesome. And I think, tango is supposed to be community driven.
> 
> the lack of proper planning relates to everything:
> blocking bugs that affect tango for D2, licensing issues - everyone has his own prefered license and there is no central body to manage that (there is a GOOD reason why all GNU code is copyrighted by the FSF), no plan as to what features will be implemented, how and when  (latest example - Bartosz' concurrency design for D which was rejected by Andrei), lack of planning for the standard library user APIs - Andrei rewrote half of phobos - with no regard for integration efforts with tango, and so forth.
> 
> It really doesn't matter how good a programmer Andrei is if there is no consideration for the end user in his code. It doesn't matter how fast a car you can build if it doesn't fit on the standard state roads. D feels like patient zero of NIH syndrom where everything is a one man show. no fucking amount of colaboration is even taken into account.
> 
> The only person here that undersands this is Don and nobody listens to him, so fucking what if he needs to copy-paste all his code to support the tango-phobos dichotomy, right?
> 

d00d. cussin's pathetic. don't suit ya. wut's yer real problem?

"Jason House" <jason.james.house@gmail.com> wrote in message news:h2flfv$1bkj$1@digitalmars.com...
> Kagamin Wrote:
>
>> yigal chripun Wrote:
>>
>> > there is no defined system for the development of D. even MS has a well
>> > defined plan for their .net platform. where's the plan for D? where the
>> > process to define that plan?
>> > Either you need to have a plan or you need to have a community driven
>> > process (Java JSRs, Python PEPs).
>>
>> How the development plan relates to tango? There's a plan to port tango to D2, though it proved to be troublesome. And I think, tango is supposed to be community driven.
>
> My understanding is that the D2 port was an effort by one inspired community member. It lived in its own branch and quickly got out of date. Both D2 and this mailing list are completely ignored by the Tango developers. Once D2 stops changing, they may reconsider. As far as I know, however, there is no way to maintain a dual D1/D2 code base, and that makes me worry that the Tango devs will have to choose between D1 and D2.
>

You make it sound like the Tango devs are just being stubborn. But AIUI, it *is* Tango's plan to port to D2 as soon as D2 stabalizes (a lesson learned from the prior efforts that you mentioned), which Walter/Andrei have been promising will be in a few months around the time of the book's release.

And I've seen some of them around here, like Lars and Sean. I suppose I haven't seen Kris unless he goes by a different name here. But then there's Jasha's who's just plain been busy, so that's understandable with him. (I forget offhand who else is a regular tango guy, I'm terrible with names anyway...) From what I can tell, I don't see much evidence to suggest that the Tango guys are avoiding the ng.