digitalmars.D - Re: Tango compatability with Phobos
- Simas <simas gmx.net> Oct 15 2007
Don Clugston Wrote:Daniel Keep wrote:Yigal Chripun wrote:... Until we reach a merged, agreed by all one API, there is no standard library for D in my mind.
"agreed by all one API" Yeah, I don't think that's gonna happen. Ever. You're asking programmers to unilaterally agree on a large, complex topic. These are the people who continually rewrite stuff because of "not invented here" or "don't like the capitalisation on the identifiers" or "because I felt like it" syndromes... :P... P.S i'd prefer either be able to import Cout and just have two functions like print/println with formatting, or changing Cout to out (no upper case letters, and without C-style shortcut names) I prefer more readable java style with camel case full names rather than c/c++ 3 letter abbreviations like ptr instead of pointer, buf instead of buffer and etc.. (we all know that we read code a lot more than we write it, so it's better to write longerIdentifierNames which would be easier to read and understand later)
See, and I prefer the terseness of C. One thing that always made me want to throw the computer out the window when programming Java was the fact that every damn statement took, at minimum, three lines to do anything constructive just because all the identifiers were so bloody long. I want to write code. Not a dissertation. When you've got names that long, you just end up with this dense, unreadable mess. Besides, if the names are a little bit cryptic, people will actually take the time to carefully read the code to make sure they understand it instead of assuming they know what it means, which is *clearly* better. Give me function names I can type in under three seconds and some decent comments any day. And that's the problem. I think that for some people Phobos is better because it's a lot like the standard C library. They like it like that. That's why I think all the calls for a complete merge are a bit silly; D's unique AFAIK in that it's got a very lean, simple API and a much more powerful, more complete API. Make them compatible, sure, but keep them separate. Don't take away our toys just because *you* don't play with them. :)
We can probably do a bit better than that. I think that if we get the runtime sorted out, so that both Phobos and Tango can both be used together, then it ought to be possible to merge a lot of the implementation code. But as long as they can't be used together, the situation is hopeless.
Agreed. What i miss is the statement of Walter. How do you think about the phobos future? Is phobos completed or is phobos 2.0 planned? This may help to solve the incompatibility problem.
Oct 15 2007