www.digitalmars.com         C & C++   DMDScript  

digitalmars.D - Re: Polishing D - suggestions and comments

reply Dan <murpsoft hotmail.com> writes:
Jarrod Wrote:


 On Wed, 23 Jan 2008 21:52:19 -0500, Daniel wrote:
 

 Walter is, and ought to be, focusing his efforts on the language more
 than the libraries.
 
 Oddly, I would argue that all libraries are simply stop-gap fixes for
 missing or poorly implemented language features; indeed most programming
 code tends to be.
 
 However, D has phobos, there was mango, now tango, and work has been
 done on a tangobos.  The fact that the library keeps changing shows that
 D's language features actually have an impact, as they frequently
 replace or integrate library features.
 
 Regards,
 Dan



 To claim Phobos is not a part of D is to claim the C stdlib is not a part 
 of C. 
 Phobos is a part of D, and it's a very important part of D too (hell we 
 can't even have classes without Object.d). Walter is the father of Phobos 
 and although he allows others to contribute to it, he is the one who 
 decides what to add to Phobos and how to add it. Yes, Walter should focus 
 on developing the language of course, but he also has to decide what the 
 *standard* library is going to be since he is after all the head project 
 manager of both Phobos and D.
 I emphasize the word *standard* because right now, we don't have a 
 standard. Unless you include a bunch of versioning/mixin hacks, we 
 currently have code that won't even compile on different workstations 
 because of two very different core libraries that are totally 
 incompatible. So now we're stuck with an annoying rift.
 Tangobos is a step in the right direction to get compatibility back, but 
 at the moment it's just a band-aid solution.
 
 All I want to see is a standard, be it Phobos with all the cool stuff 
 Tango adds, or a Tango with all the nice things Phobos has. But this 
 isn't going to happen unless one of the dev teams concedes already :|



Fair assessment.  I think Tango is more open source and takes the load off
Walter.  It's just simply too heavyweight for me to dare use it; so library
developers go to Tango and library users still go to Phobos.  : p

That guy who developed the cool Agner Fog optimized mixin algorithm should get
access to an AST.  I'm sure he could write a kick-ass lib.

Regards,
Dan
Jan 25 2008
next sibling parent reply Lars Ivar Igesund <larsivar igesund.net> writes:
Dan wrote:


 Jarrod Wrote:
 

 On Wed, 23 Jan 2008 21:52:19 -0500, Daniel wrote:
 

 Walter is, and ought to be, focusing his efforts on the language more
 than the libraries.
 
 Oddly, I would argue that all libraries are simply stop-gap fixes for
 missing or poorly implemented language features; indeed most
 programming code tends to be.
 
 However, D has phobos, there was mango, now tango, and work has been
 done on a tangobos.  The fact that the library keeps changing shows
 that D's language features actually have an impact, as they frequently
 replace or integrate library features.
 
 Regards,
 Dan



 To claim Phobos is not a part of D is to claim the C stdlib is not a part
 of C.
 Phobos is a part of D, and it's a very important part of D too (hell we
 can't even have classes without Object.d). Walter is the father of Phobos
 and although he allows others to contribute to it, he is the one who
 decides what to add to Phobos and how to add it. Yes, Walter should focus
 on developing the language of course, but he also has to decide what the
 *standard* library is going to be since he is after all the head project
 manager of both Phobos and D.
 I emphasize the word *standard* because right now, we don't have a
 standard. Unless you include a bunch of versioning/mixin hacks, we
 currently have code that won't even compile on different workstations
 because of two very different core libraries that are totally
 incompatible. So now we're stuck with an annoying rift.
 Tangobos is a step in the right direction to get compatibility back, but
 at the moment it's just a band-aid solution.
 
 All I want to see is a standard, be it Phobos with all the cool stuff
 Tango adds, or a Tango with all the nice things Phobos has. But this
 isn't going to happen unless one of the dev teams concedes already :|



 Fair assessment.  I think Tango is more open source and takes the load off
 Walter.  It's just simply too heavyweight for me to dare use it; so
 library developers go to Tango and library users still go to Phobos.  : p



I am just curious, what do you consider to be too heavyweight about Tango?
Or why do you think it is too heavyweight?

-- 
Lars Ivar Igesund
blog at http://larsivi.net
DSource, #d.tango & #D: larsivi
Dancing the Tango
Jan 25 2008
parent reply Jesse Phillips <jessekphillips gmail.com> writes:
On Fri, 25 Jan 2008 18:57:17 +0100, Lars Ivar Igesund wrote:


 Dan wrote:
 

 Jarrod Wrote:
 

 On Wed, 23 Jan 2008 21:52:19 -0500, Daniel wrote:
 

 Walter is, and ought to be, focusing his efforts on the language
 more than the libraries.
 
 Oddly, I would argue that all libraries are simply stop-gap fixes
 for missing or poorly implemented language features; indeed most
 programming code tends to be.
 
 However, D has phobos, there was mango, now tango, and work has been
 done on a tangobos.  The fact that the library keeps changing shows
 that D's language features actually have an impact, as they
 frequently replace or integrate library features.
 
 Regards,
 Dan



 To claim Phobos is not a part of D is to claim the C stdlib is not a
 part of C.
 Phobos is a part of D, and it's a very important part of D too (hell
 we can't even have classes without Object.d). Walter is the father of
 Phobos and although he allows others to contribute to it, he is the
 one who decides what to add to Phobos and how to add it. Yes, Walter
 should focus on developing the language of course, but he also has to
 decide what the *standard* library is going to be since he is after
 all the head project manager of both Phobos and D.
 I emphasize the word *standard* because right now, we don't have a
 standard. Unless you include a bunch of versioning/mixin hacks, we
 currently have code that won't even compile on different workstations
 because of two very different core libraries that are totally
 incompatible. So now we're stuck with an annoying rift. Tangobos is a
 step in the right direction to get compatibility back, but at the
 moment it's just a band-aid solution.
 
 All I want to see is a standard, be it Phobos with all the cool stuff
 Tango adds, or a Tango with all the nice things Phobos has. But this
 isn't going to happen unless one of the dev teams concedes already :|



 Fair assessment.  I think Tango is more open source and takes the load
 off Walter.  It's just simply too heavyweight for me to dare use it; so
 library developers go to Tango and library users still go to Phobos.  :
 p



 I am just curious, what do you consider to be too heavyweight about
 Tango? Or why do you think it is too heavyweight?



I still have yet to develop in Tango (My book should be here within the 
week), but I think I know what Dan is trying to say by heavyweight.

It is not related to the size or speed of the code, as Sean was 
questioning, but in the use. The best comparison I can think of is that 
it is like going from C to Java. (I'm not saying Tango is like java) The 
phobos library is very procedural, you you import your module and call 
your functions. Tango is Object based, import, create object/call object 
to do something for you. There is a sense of simplicity when you don't 
use objects. That is frankly one of the reasons I have not moved to Tango 
yet.
Jan 25 2008
parent reply Lars Ivar Igesund <larsivar igesund.net> writes:
Jesse Phillips wrote:


 On Fri, 25 Jan 2008 18:57:17 +0100, Lars Ivar Igesund wrote:
 

 Dan wrote:
 

 Jarrod Wrote:
 

 On Wed, 23 Jan 2008 21:52:19 -0500, Daniel wrote:
 

 Walter is, and ought to be, focusing his efforts on the language
 more than the libraries.
 
 Oddly, I would argue that all libraries are simply stop-gap fixes
 for missing or poorly implemented language features; indeed most
 programming code tends to be.
 
 However, D has phobos, there was mango, now tango, and work has been
 done on a tangobos.  The fact that the library keeps changing shows
 that D's language features actually have an impact, as they
 frequently replace or integrate library features.
 
 Regards,
 Dan



 To claim Phobos is not a part of D is to claim the C stdlib is not a
 part of C.
 Phobos is a part of D, and it's a very important part of D too (hell
 we can't even have classes without Object.d). Walter is the father of
 Phobos and although he allows others to contribute to it, he is the
 one who decides what to add to Phobos and how to add it. Yes, Walter
 should focus on developing the language of course, but he also has to
 decide what the *standard* library is going to be since he is after
 all the head project manager of both Phobos and D.
 I emphasize the word *standard* because right now, we don't have a
 standard. Unless you include a bunch of versioning/mixin hacks, we
 currently have code that won't even compile on different workstations
 because of two very different core libraries that are totally
 incompatible. So now we're stuck with an annoying rift. Tangobos is a
 step in the right direction to get compatibility back, but at the
 moment it's just a band-aid solution.
 
 All I want to see is a standard, be it Phobos with all the cool stuff
 Tango adds, or a Tango with all the nice things Phobos has. But this
 isn't going to happen unless one of the dev teams concedes already :|



 Fair assessment.  I think Tango is more open source and takes the load
 off Walter.  It's just simply too heavyweight for me to dare use it; so
 library developers go to Tango and library users still go to Phobos.  :
 p



 I am just curious, what do you consider to be too heavyweight about
 Tango? Or why do you think it is too heavyweight?



 I still have yet to develop in Tango (My book should be here within the
 week), but I think I know what Dan is trying to say by heavyweight.
 
 It is not related to the size or speed of the code, as Sean was
 questioning, but in the use. The best comparison I can think of is that
 it is like going from C to Java. (I'm not saying Tango is like java) The
 phobos library is very procedural, you you import your module and call
 your functions. Tango is Object based, import, create object/call object
 to do something for you. There is a sense of simplicity when you don't
 use objects. That is frankly one of the reasons I have not moved to Tango
 yet.



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.

-- 
Lars Ivar Igesund
blog at http://larsivi.net
DSource, #d.tango & #D: larsivi
Dancing the Tango
Jan 25 2008
next sibling parent reply Robert Fraser <fraserofthenight gmail.com> writes:
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.
Jan 25 2008
next sibling parent Robert Fraser <fraserofthenight gmail.com> writes:
Robert Fraser wrote:

 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 shouldn't write long sentences; I tend to get lost halfway though.
Jan 25 2008
prev sibling next sibling parent Lars Ivar Igesund <larsivar igesund.net> writes:
Robert Fraser wrote:


 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.



Yes, this is a comfort zone thing, and not something we can or intend to do
much with. However, my feeling (since feeling seems to be an important
keyword here) is that some may use their general discomfort as a critique
towards Tango, without quantifying (or not even having anything to quantify
beyond feeling) it. I have to take this to mean that beyond certain details
that could be improved, there isn't an overall problem with Tango per se,
it is just about face value alone. Assuming I'm correct at this aspect, I
hope to avoid too much discussion on it in the future.

Specific issues or opinions on specific features / decisions are quite the
different beast though.

-- 
Lars Ivar Igesund
blog at http://larsivi.net
DSource, #d.tango & #D: larsivi
Dancing the Tango
Jan 26 2008
prev sibling next sibling parent reply Leandro Lucarella <llucax gmail.com> writes:
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.

-- 
Leandro Lucarella (luca) | Blog colectivo: http://www.mazziblog.com.ar/blog/
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
GPG Key: 5F5A8D05 (F8CD F9A7 BF00 5431 4145  104C 949E BFB6 5F5A 8D05)
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
¿Cómo estais? ¿Cómo os senteis hoy 29 del membre de 1961 día en que
conmemoreramos la nonésima setima nebulización del martir Peperino
Pómoro junto al Rolo Puente en la ciudad de Jadad?
	-- Peperino Pómoro
Jan 26 2008
next sibling parent reply Bill Baxter <dnewsgroup billbaxter.com> writes:
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.



 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.

--bb
Jan 26 2008
next sibling parent reply Lars Ivar Igesund <larsivar igesund.net> writes:
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.



 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.

-- 
Lars Ivar Igesund
blog at http://larsivi.net
DSource, #d.tango & #D: larsivi
Dancing the Tango
Jan 26 2008
parent Don Clugston <dac nospam.com.au> writes:
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.



 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 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.



 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.
Jan 28 2008
prev sibling parent reply "Kris" <foo bar.com> writes:
"Bill Baxter" <dnewsgroup billbaxter.com> wrote in message 
news:fng5c1$un8$1 digitalmars.com...

 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.






That is exactly what Tango is about. It is a modular library, written 
carefully and explicitly to reduce interdependencies within the library 
itself. You might think of Tango as being composed of several onion layers, 
each of which depends upon its interior only. Tango is built to address the 
"small" and "large" library notions mentioned (and a few in between as 
necessary).



 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



A "regular library"? Feels quite 'regular' to lots of people, so perhaps you 
could indicate what that means to you? Do you perhaps mean, it's not just a 
clone of phobos?



 doesn't require you to "get religion" first.



Tango can be somewhat different from phobos, yes. Does it require adoption 
of a "religion" to be different, Bill? Surely that's a bit of a stretch?
Jan 26 2008
next sibling parent reply Bill Baxter <dnewsgroup billbaxter.com> writes:
Kris wrote:

 "Bill Baxter" <dnewsgroup billbaxter.com> wrote in message 
 news:fng5c1$un8$1 digitalmars.com...

 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.






 That is exactly what Tango is about. It is a modular library, written 
 carefully and explicitly to reduce interdependencies within the library 
 itself. You might think of Tango as being composed of several onion layers, 
 each of which depends upon its interior only. Tango is built to address the 
 "small" and "large" library notions mentioned (and a few in between as 
 necessary).
 
 

 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



 A "regular library"? Feels quite 'regular' to lots of people, so perhaps you 
 could indicate what that means to you? Do you perhaps mean, it's not just a 
 clone of phobos?
 
 

 doesn't require you to "get religion" first.



 Tango can be somewhat different from phobos, yes. Does it require adoption 
 of a "religion" to be different, Bill? Surely that's a bit of a stretch?



Heh heh.  By "get religion" I just mean you have to make a significant 
non-default choice that will affect and influence your subsequent 
actions.  And once you "believe in Tango" it's difficult to share your 
code with other "non-believers" without first getting them to convert first.

--bb
Jan 26 2008
parent reply "Kris" <foo bar.com> writes:
"Bill Baxter" <dnewsgroup billbaxter.com> wrote in message 
news:fngcb5$1eee$1 digitalmars.com...

 doesn't require you to "get religion" first.



 Tango can be somewhat different from phobos, yes. Does it require 
 adoption of a "religion" to be different, Bill? Surely that's a bit of a 
 stretch?



 Heh heh.  By "get religion" I just mean you have to make a significant 
 non-default choice that will affect and influence your subsequent actions. 
 And once you "believe in Tango" it's difficult to share your code with 
 other "non-believers" without first getting them to convert first.




Ah, right :)

I was concerned some folks might get the wrong idea there, so thanks for the 
clarification. But again, I suspect there's something a tad misguiding? For 
example:

- Tangobos exposes the phobos API atop the Tango runtime. Thus, we already 
have exactly what you described earlier, but with the roles reversed. e.g. 
phobos is running within Tango, rather than the other way around. That makes 
a lot of sense to many folks. There was a notable call (in this NG) to 
combine the API from both, and that has been available for the last couple 
of releases. We did it this way because the first approach wound up going 
nowhere of note, and many people complained about a lack of progress.

- some consider this aspect: 
http://dsource.org/projects/tango/wiki/TangoUsers

- You note that Tango is a "significant non-default choice". For those who 
download bundles from DSource, that is not the case. Tango is the default 
choice there, with an option to embed the phobos API as an extension.

- I know of several significant libraries in the works, which target Tango 
alone. There are a variety of reasons for that, but one often cited is the 
raw-efficiency of the I/O model (it runs rings around the C lib, for 
example).

The point you appear to make is one that's been held aloft in the past. 
However, there are solid resolutions readily available, and the implication 
that targeting Tango is somehow going to afflict the longevity or 
compatibility of one's code really could not be further from the truth. In 
fact, your assertion over this aspect would likely make much more sense if 
it were inverted ;)

Cheers
Jan 26 2008
parent reply Bill Baxter <dnewsgroup billbaxter.com> writes:
Kris wrote:

 "Bill Baxter" <dnewsgroup billbaxter.com> wrote in message 
 news:fngcb5$1eee$1 digitalmars.com...

 doesn't require you to "get religion" first.



 adoption of a "religion" to be different, Bill? Surely that's a bit of a 
 stretch?



 non-default choice that will affect and influence your subsequent actions. 
 And once you "believe in Tango" it's difficult to share your code with 
 other "non-believers" without first getting them to convert first.



 
 Ah, right :)
 
 I was concerned some folks might get the wrong idea there, so thanks for the 
 clarification. But again, I suspect there's something a tad misguiding? For 
 example:
 
 - Tangobos exposes the phobos API atop the Tango runtime. Thus, we already 
 have exactly what you described earlier, but with the roles reversed. e.g. 
 phobos is running within Tango, rather than the other way around. That makes 
 a lot of sense to many folks. There was a notable call (in this NG) to 
 combine the API from both, and that has been available for the last couple 
 of releases. We did it this way because the first approach wound up going 
 nowhere of note, and many people complained about a lack of progress.
 
 - some consider this aspect: 
 http://dsource.org/projects/tango/wiki/TangoUsers
 
 - You note that Tango is a "significant non-default choice". For those who 
 download bundles from DSource, that is not the case. Tango is the default 
 choice there, with an option to embed the phobos API as an extension.
 
 - I know of several significant libraries in the works, which target Tango 
 alone. There are a variety of reasons for that, but one often cited is the 
 raw-efficiency of the I/O model (it runs rings around the C lib, for 
 example).
 
 The point you appear to make is one that's been held aloft in the past. 



Yes, the gap is narrowing.  Which is great.


 However, there are solid resolutions readily available, and the implication 
 that targeting Tango is somehow going to afflict the longevity or 
 compatibility of one's code really could not be further from the truth. 
 In
 fact, your assertion over this aspect would likely make much more 




 it were inverted ;)



I said nothing about longevity.  I don't see that as a problem at all. 
Just compatibility.  And the fact is Tango code remains incompatible 
with the default install of dmd digitalmars.com.  Which is what the 
majority of casual users are likely to end up with.  Why? Because if you 
google trying to find out about D you're going to end up at digitalmars.com.

I think it would be great if links to the Tango distro were listed right 
alongside the Phobos packages on DigitalMars.com.  Then my argument 
would go away because first-timers would all see it and think, "ah ok 
this is just as official ... and more featureful. I'll go for that." 
But right now they aren't and most people checking out D are just going 
to get the default and be happy enough with that.

--bb
Jan 26 2008
parent "Kris" <foo bar.com> writes:
"Bill Baxter" <dnewsgroup billbaxter.com> wrote..
[snip]

 I think it would be great if links to the Tango distro were listed right 
 alongside the Phobos packages on DigitalMars.com.  Then my argument would 
 go away because first-timers would all see it and think, "ah ok this is 
 just as official ... and more featureful. I'll go for that."




Good idea, Bill.  I'm sure that would be appreciated by many
Jan 26 2008
prev sibling parent reply John Reimer <terminal.node gmail.com> writes:
Kris wrote:


 

 doesn't require you to "get religion" first.



 Tango can be somewhat different from phobos, yes. Does it require adoption 
 of a "religion" to be different, Bill? Surely that's a bit of a stretch?
 
 




I think part of the "religious" aspect reflected from Tango is also 
related to the photo in the "rogues gallery":

http://www.dsource.org/projects/tango/wiki/Contributors

It promotes the burlesque image of a cult following.  I've always 
disliked it.  While perhaps intended to be amusing, I think it puts 
across too playful an image for a library that should begin to take 
itself seriously as a maturing product.

I know it's meant as a sort self-deprecating humour... but perhaps Tango 
has grown out of that now?

Ironically, the fundamental differences between the Phobos and Tango 
design philosophies seem to be demonstrated through the above: Phobos 
tends to exude an aura that is lean, austere, and self-serious;  while 
Tango tends to exemplify free, swanky, and hip with the cult-following 
undertones demonstrated in the contrib photo. I like Tango, though, for 
many reasons unrelated to it's personality, which I kind of wish it 
would lose.

-JJR
Jan 26 2008
parent reply "Kris" <foo bar.com> writes:
"John Reimer" <terminal.node gmail.com> wrote in message 
news:fngk4i$1tdu$1 digitalmars.com...

 Kris wrote:


 doesn't require you to "get religion" first.



 Tango can be somewhat different from phobos, yes. Does it require 
 adoption of a "religion" to be different, Bill? Surely that's a bit of a 
 stretch?




 I think part of the "religious" aspect reflected from Tango is also 
 related to the photo in the "rogues gallery":

 http://www.dsource.org/projects/tango/wiki/Contributors

 It promotes the burlesque image of a cult following.  I've always disliked 
 it.  While perhaps intended to be amusing, I think it puts across too 
 playful an image for a library that should begin to take itself seriously 
 as a maturing product.

 I know it's meant as a sort self-deprecating humour... but perhaps Tango 
 has grown out of that now?

 Ironically, the fundamental differences between the Phobos and Tango 
 design philosophies seem to be demonstrated through the above: Phobos 
 tends to exude an aura that is lean, austere, and self-serious;  while 
 Tango tends to exemplify free, swanky, and hip with the cult-following 
 undertones demonstrated in the contrib photo. I like Tango, though, for 
 many reasons unrelated to it's personality, which I kind of wish it would 
 lose.

 -JJR




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

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.

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.

Please suggest a replacement? Perhaps we should run a little competition?
Jan 26 2008
parent reply John Reimer <terminal.node gmail.com> writes:
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.
Jan 26 2008
next sibling parent "Kris" <foo bar.com> writes:
"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
Jan 26 2008
prev sibling next sibling parent reply Carlos Santander <csantander619 gmail.com> writes:
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
Jan 29 2008
parent reply John Reimer <terminal.node gmail.com> writes:
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
Jan 30 2008
next sibling parent reply Dan <murpsoft hotmail.com> writes:
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
Jan 30 2008
parent John Reimer <terminal.node gmail.com> writes:
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
Jan 30 2008
prev sibling parent John Reimer <terminal.node gmail.com> writes:
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
Jan 31 2008
prev sibling parent reply jcc7 <technocrat7 gmail.com> writes:
== Quote from John Reimer (terminal.node gmail.com)'s article

 Kris wrote:




 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?



 suppose.



By the way, the picture that used to be on the Contributors page [1] is still in
tango-tangobos-0.99.4-bin-win32-dmd.1.024.zip that I just downloaded today (and
probably other .zips as well). I'm not saying that you need to remove it from
the
archive and change the file in SVN, but if there's an automated routine that
builds the archive someone might want to take "TangoTeam.jpg" off of the list
(if
they haven't already). Just a suggestion for the Tango team from someone who's
too
lazy to write a ticket... ;)


[1] http://www.dsource.org/projects/tango/wiki/Contributors
Feb 15 2008
parent reply jcc7 <technocrat7 gmail.com> writes:
== Quote from jcc7 (technocrat7 gmail.com)'s article

 == Quote from John Reimer (terminal.node gmail.com)'s article

 Kris wrote:




 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?



 suppose.



 is still in tango-tangobos-0.99.4-bin-win32-dmd.1.024.zip that I
 just downloaded today (and probably other .zips as well). I'm not
 saying that you need to remove it from the archive and change the
 file in SVN, but if there's an automated routine that builds the
 archive someone might want to take "TangoTeam.jpg" off of the list
 (if they haven't already). Just a suggestion for the Tango team from
 someone who's too lazy to write a ticket... ;)

 [1] http://www.dsource.org/projects/tango/wiki/Contributors



(I wish I could cancel a post done through the web interface.)

Oops. Nevermind, I don't know what I'm talking about. :(

(I promise I'm not high -- I just got a little confused.)
Feb 15 2008
parent reply Lars Ivar Igesund <larsivar igesund.net> writes:
jcc7 wrote:


 == Quote from jcc7 (technocrat7 gmail.com)'s article

 == Quote from John Reimer (terminal.node gmail.com)'s article

 Kris wrote:




 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?



 suppose.



 is still in tango-tangobos-0.99.4-bin-win32-dmd.1.024.zip that I
 just downloaded today (and probably other .zips as well). I'm not
 saying that you need to remove it from the archive and change the
 file in SVN, but if there's an automated routine that builds the
 archive someone might want to take "TangoTeam.jpg" off of the list
 (if they haven't already). Just a suggestion for the Tango team from
 someone who's too lazy to write a ticket... ;)

 [1] http://www.dsource.org/projects/tango/wiki/Contributors



 (I wish I could cancel a post done through the web interface.)
 
 Oops. Nevermind, I don't know what I'm talking about. :(
 
 (I promise I'm not high -- I just got a little confused.)



So am I now ...

-- 
Lars Ivar Igesund
blog at http://larsivi.net
DSource, #d.tango & #D: larsivi
Dancing the Tango
Feb 15 2008
next sibling parent Robert Fraser <fraserofthenight gmail.com> writes:
Lars Ivar Igesund Wrote:


 jcc7 wrote:
 

 == Quote from jcc7 (technocrat7 gmail.com)'s article

 == Quote from John Reimer (terminal.node gmail.com)'s article

 Kris wrote:




 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?



 suppose.



 is still in tango-tangobos-0.99.4-bin-win32-dmd.1.024.zip that I
 just downloaded today (and probably other .zips as well). I'm not
 saying that you need to remove it from the archive and change the
 file in SVN, but if there's an automated routine that builds the
 archive someone might want to take "TangoTeam.jpg" off of the list
 (if they haven't already). Just a suggestion for the Tango team from
 someone who's too lazy to write a ticket... ;)

 [1] http://www.dsource.org/projects/tango/wiki/Contributors



 (I wish I could cancel a post done through the web interface.)
 
 Oops. Nevermind, I don't know what I'm talking about. :(
 
 (I promise I'm not high -- I just got a little confused.)



 So am I now ...
 



... High or confused?


 -- 
 Lars Ivar Igesund
 blog at http://larsivi.net
 DSource, #d.tango & #D: larsivi
 Dancing the Tango
Feb 15 2008
prev sibling parent reply Robert Fraser <fraserofthenight gmail.com> writes:
Lars Ivar Igesund Wrote:


 jcc7 wrote:
 

 == Quote from jcc7 (technocrat7 gmail.com)'s article

 == Quote from John Reimer (terminal.node gmail.com)'s article

 Kris wrote:




 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?



 suppose.



 is still in tango-tangobos-0.99.4-bin-win32-dmd.1.024.zip that I
 just downloaded today (and probably other .zips as well). I'm not
 saying that you need to remove it from the archive and change the
 file in SVN, but if there's an automated routine that builds the
 archive someone might want to take "TangoTeam.jpg" off of the list
 (if they haven't already). Just a suggestion for the Tango team from
 someone who's too lazy to write a ticket... ;)

 [1] http://www.dsource.org/projects/tango/wiki/Contributors



 (I wish I could cancel a post done through the web interface.)
 
 Oops. Nevermind, I don't know what I'm talking about. :(
 
 (I promise I'm not high -- I just got a little confused.)



 So am I now ...
 



... High or confused?


 -- 
 Lars Ivar Igesund
 blog at http://larsivi.net
 DSource, #d.tango & #D: larsivi
 Dancing the Tango
Feb 15 2008
parent reply Lars Ivar Igesund <larsivar igesund.net> writes:
Robert Fraser wrote:


 Lars Ivar Igesund Wrote:
 

 jcc7 wrote:
 

 == Quote from jcc7 (technocrat7 gmail.com)'s article

 == Quote from John Reimer (terminal.node gmail.com)'s article

 Kris wrote:




 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?



 suppose.



 is still in tango-tangobos-0.99.4-bin-win32-dmd.1.024.zip that I
 just downloaded today (and probably other .zips as well). I'm not
 saying that you need to remove it from the archive and change the
 file in SVN, but if there's an automated routine that builds the
 archive someone might want to take "TangoTeam.jpg" off of the list
 (if they haven't already). Just a suggestion for the Tango team from
 someone who's too lazy to write a ticket... ;)

 [1] http://www.dsource.org/projects/tango/wiki/Contributors



 (I wish I could cancel a post done through the web interface.)
 
 Oops. Nevermind, I don't know what I'm talking about. :(
 
 (I promise I'm not high -- I just got a little confused.)



 So am I now ...
 



 ... High or confused?



Yes.

-- 
Lars Ivar Igesund
blog at http://larsivi.net
DSource, #d.tango & #D: larsivi
Dancing the Tango
Feb 16 2008
parent Robert Fraser <fraserofthenight gmail.com> writes:
Eww sorry about the double post 4 hours apart. BlackBerry (cell phpme) + web
interface + four different airports == sadness all around, especially with the
illustrious back button.

Lars Ivar Igesund Wrote:


 Robert Fraser wrote:
 

 Lars Ivar Igesund Wrote:
 

 jcc7 wrote:
 

 == Quote from jcc7 (technocrat7 gmail.com)'s article

 == Quote from John Reimer (terminal.node gmail.com)'s article

 Kris wrote:




 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?



 suppose.



 is still in tango-tangobos-0.99.4-bin-win32-dmd.1.024.zip that I
 just downloaded today (and probably other .zips as well). I'm not
 saying that you need to remove it from the archive and change the
 file in SVN, but if there's an automated routine that builds the
 archive someone might want to take "TangoTeam.jpg" off of the list
 (if they haven't already). Just a suggestion for the Tango team from
 someone who's too lazy to write a ticket... ;)

 [1] http://www.dsource.org/projects/tango/wiki/Contributors



 (I wish I could cancel a post done through the web interface.)
 
 Oops. Nevermind, I don't know what I'm talking about. :(
 
 (I promise I'm not high -- I just got a little confused.)



 So am I now ...
 



 ... High or confused?



 Yes.
 
 -- 
 Lars Ivar Igesund
 blog at http://larsivi.net
 DSource, #d.tango & #D: larsivi
 Dancing the Tango
Feb 16 2008
prev sibling parent Robert Fraser <fraserofthenight gmail.com> writes:
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.
Jan 26 2008
prev sibling parent "Janice Caron" <caron800 googlemail.com> writes:
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! :-)
Jan 31 2008
prev sibling parent reply Jason House <jason.james.house gmail.com> writes:
Lars Ivar Igesund Wrote:


 Jesse Phillips wrote:

 It is not related to the size or speed of the code, as Sean was
 questioning, but in the use. The best comparison I can think of is that
 it is like going from C to Java. (I'm not saying Tango is like java) The
 phobos library is very procedural, you you import your module and call
 your functions. Tango is Object based, import, create object/call object
 to do something for you. There is a sense of simplicity when you don't
 use objects. That is frankly one of the reasons I have not moved to Tango
 yet.



 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.



Maybe I'm misusing the library, but I know I've had to create formatting
objects (print!(char)?), even for common cases.
Jan 25 2008
parent Lars Ivar Igesund <larsivar igesund.net> writes:
Jason House wrote:


 Lars Ivar Igesund Wrote:
 

 Jesse Phillips wrote:

 It is not related to the size or speed of the code, as Sean was
 questioning, but in the use. The best comparison I can think of is that
 it is like going from C to Java. (I'm not saying Tango is like java)
 The phobos library is very procedural, you you import your module and
 call your functions. Tango is Object based, import, create object/call
 object to do something for you. There is a sense of simplicity when you
 don't use objects. That is frankly one of the reasons I have not moved
 to Tango yet.



 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.



 Maybe I'm misusing the library, but I know I've had to create formatting
 objects (print!(char)?), even for common cases.



There is a global Layout instance in tango.text.convert.Format that defaults
to char -

Format.layout ("{0}", "first arg");

or if you already has imported Stdout

Stdout.layout (...);

-- 
Lars Ivar Igesund
blog at http://larsivi.net
DSource, #d.tango & #D: larsivi
Dancing the Tango
Jan 26 2008
prev sibling parent Sean Kelly <sean f4.ca> writes:
Dan wrote:

 Jarrod Wrote:

 All I want to see is a standard, be it Phobos with all the cool stuff 
 Tango adds, or a Tango with all the nice things Phobos has. But this 
 isn't going to happen unless one of the dev teams concedes already :|



 Fair assessment.  I think Tango is more open source and takes the load off
Walter.  It's just simply too heavyweight for me to dare use it; so library
developers go to Tango and library users still go to Phobos.  : p



Could you explain?  Tango was built from the ground up to be completely
modular, so I'm not sure I understand the opinion that it's heavyweight.
 One of the original design parameters was that it be as suitable for
kernel development as for application development, and I believe it's
accomplished this goal quite well.


 That guy who developed the cool Agner Fog optimized mixin algorithm should get
access to an AST.  I'm sure he could write a kick-ass lib.



Once const is settled, I think we'll begin to see more of the 2.0
features Walter promised :-)


Sean
Jan 25 2008