• Yonggang Luo (2/2) Sep 16 2008 It's seems that most hard things to geting Phobos and Tango working toge...
• Gregor Richards (3/3) Sep 16 2008 A SUGGESTION FOR THE D COMMULITY 2: THE RECKONING
• Ary Borenszweig (2/7) Sep 17 2008 That made me laugh a lot. :-D
• Saaa (2/2) Sep 17 2008 I'd just like to mention I also love D to have just a single stdlib. Mos...
• Rayne (3/6) Sep 17 2008 Your starting to get annoying with this "have to do" this "have to do" t...
• Saaa (9/28) Sep 17 2008 Having one library would be easier.
• Rayne (3/43) Sep 17 2008 Both libarys are useful, and they both offer different features that cou...
• Saaa (7/58) Sep 17 2008 I thought you agreed :)
• Bill Baxter (14/16) Sep 17 2008 Rayne, there's a difference between being just another library, and
• J Duncan (6/15) Sep 17 2008 True, but a fundamental issue we are dealing with now is code written
• Tom S (7/12) Sep 18 2008 *gasps* ... you're alive!! :O

Yonggang Luo <luoyonggang gmail.com> writes:

It's seems that most hard things to geting Phobos and Tango working together is
that the "object.d" is different. Because everything is derived from
"object.d", so if we want to geting Phobos and Tango working together, we must
do a hudge refactoring. But we have to do, because of Phobos and Tango will be
larger and larger. And there is such a day, we must geting Phobos and Tango
working together, it's be a very hard thing to do. 

And we have another choice, that give up Phobos or Tango, leave one library as
the stardard! But i think this would be harder.

Gregor Richards <Richards codu.org> writes:

A SUGGESTION FOR THE D COMMULITY 2: THE RECKONING

In theaters on Halloween

  - Gregor Richards

Ary Borenszweig <ary esperanto.org.ar> writes:

Gregor Richards a écrit :
 A SUGGESTION FOR THE D COMMULITY 2: THE RECKONING
 
 In theaters on Halloween
 
  - Gregor Richards

That made me laugh a lot. :-D

"Saaa" <empty needmail.com> writes:

I'd just like to mention I also love D to have just a single stdlib. Mostly 
because the forking is such a waste. 

Rayne <DiscipleRayne gmail.com> writes:

Yonggang Luo Wrote:

 It's seems that most hard things to geting Phobos and Tango working together
is that the "object.d" is different. Because everything is derived from
"object.d", so if we want to geting Phobos and Tango working together, we must
do a hudge refactoring. But we have to do, because of Phobos and Tango will be
larger and larger. And there is such a day, we must geting Phobos and Tango
working together, it's be a very hard thing to do. 
 
 And we have another choice, that give up Phobos or Tango, leave one library as
the stardard! But i think this would be harder.

Your starting to get annoying with this "have to do" this "have to do" that
bullshit, no one has to do anything there is no real big reason to make them
compatible with each other, if it's not important and it's not no one is going
to care.

And there is a standard libary already, phobos, why discontinue tangos because
it's the standard? Simply because you don't want to be tempted into using
tango? Your really not making any sense.

"Saaa" <empty needmail.com> writes:

"Rayne" <DiscipleRayne gmail.com> wrote in message 
news:gaqtb1$855$1 digitalmars.com...
 Yonggang Luo Wrote:

 It's seems that most hard things to geting Phobos and Tango working 
 together is that the "object.d" is different. Because everything is 
 derived from "object.d", so if we want to geting Phobos and Tango working 
 together, we must do a hudge refactoring. But we have to do, because of 
 Phobos and Tango will be larger and larger. And there is such a day, we 
 must geting Phobos and Tango working together, it's be a very hard thing 
 to do.

 And we have another choice, that give up Phobos or Tango, leave one 
 library as the stardard! But i think this would be harder.

 Your starting to get annoying with this "have to do" this "have to do" 
 that bullshit, no one has to do anything there is no real big reason to 
 make them compatible with each other, if it's not important and it's not 
 no one is going to care.

Having one library would be easier.

 And there is a standard libary already, phobos,

I agree.

why discontinue tangos because it's the standard?

As I read it he is stating that it is a possibility to drop one of the two 
libraries.

Simply because you don't want to be tempted into using tango?

I read no preference for phobos in the post.

Your really not making any sense.

He thinks that merging two libraries together will become harder the larger 
they become.

Rayne <DiscipleRayne gmail.com> writes:

Saaa Wrote:

 
 "Rayne" <DiscipleRayne gmail.com> wrote in message 
 news:gaqtb1$855$1 digitalmars.com...
 Yonggang Luo Wrote:

 It's seems that most hard things to geting Phobos and Tango working 
 together is that the "object.d" is different. Because everything is 
 derived from "object.d", so if we want to geting Phobos and Tango working 
 together, we must do a hudge refactoring. But we have to do, because of 
 Phobos and Tango will be larger and larger. And there is such a day, we 
 must geting Phobos and Tango working together, it's be a very hard thing 
 to do.

 And we have another choice, that give up Phobos or Tango, leave one 
 library as the stardard! But i think this would be harder.

 Your starting to get annoying with this "have to do" this "have to do" 
 that bullshit, no one has to do anything there is no real big reason to 
 make them compatible with each other, if it's not important and it's not 
 no one is going to care.

 
 Having one library would be easier.
 
 And there is a standard libary already, phobos,

 I agree.
 
why discontinue tangos because it's the standard?

 As I read it he is stating that it is a possibility to drop one of the two 
 libraries.
 
Simply because you don't want to be tempted into using tango?

 I read no preference for phobos in the post.
 
Your really not making any sense.

 He thinks that merging two libraries together will become harder the larger 
 they become.
 
 
 

Both libarys are useful, and they both offer different features that could be
locked into either libary with a little work. I never said he prefered phobos,
but I was making a point, hes stating there should only be one libary for D, as
in (drop tango/phobos and go with <insert libary here>.

I don't see why having one libary would be easier, you already have one libary
you just get to choose between them, I think it's nice to have an alternate
choice of libary.

"Saaa" <empty needmail.com> writes:

 Yonggang Luo Wrote:

 It's seems that most hard things to geting Phobos and Tango working
 together is that the "object.d" is different. Because everything is
 derived from "object.d", so if we want to geting Phobos and Tango 
 working
 together, we must do a hudge refactoring. But we have to do, because 
 of
 Phobos and Tango will be larger and larger. And there is such a day, 
 we
 must geting Phobos and Tango working together, it's be a very hard 
 thing
 to do.

 And we have another choice, that give up Phobos or Tango, leave one
 library as the stardard! But i think this would be harder.

 Your starting to get annoying with this "have to do" this "have to do"
 that bullshit, no one has to do anything there is no real big reason to
 make them compatible with each other, if it's not important and it's 
 not
 no one is going to care.

 Having one library would be easier.

 And there is a standard libary already, phobos,

 I agree.

why discontinue tangos because it's the standard?

 As I read it he is stating that it is a possibility to drop one of the 
 two
 libraries.

Simply because you don't want to be tempted into using tango?

 I read no preference for phobos in the post.

Your really not making any sense.

 He thinks that merging two libraries together will become harder the 
 larger
 they become.

 Both libarys are useful, and they both offer different features that could 
 be locked into either libary with a little work. I never said he prefered 
 phobos, but I was making a point, hes stating there should only be one 
 libary for D, as in (drop tango/phobos and go with <insert libary here>.
 I don't see why having one libary would be easier, you already have one 
 libary you just get to choose between them, I think it's nice to have an 
 alternate choice of libary.

I thought you agreed :)

Easier in that I don't have to make code from others compatible with my 
stdlib.
Yeah its nice to have an alternative, but I'd also want all available code 
to be compatible with it.
If I can choose the stdlib (leaving me the alternative) and everybody else 
would use the stdlib I'd chosen that would fix it as well :D 

"Bill Baxter" <wbaxter gmail.com> writes:

On Thu, Sep 18, 2008 at 1:45 AM, Rayne <DiscipleRayne gmail.com> wrote:
 Both libarys are useful, and they both offer different features that could be
locked into either libary with a little work. I never said he prefered phobos,
but I was making a point, hes stating there should only be one libary for D, as
in (drop tango/phobos and go with <insert libary here>.

 I don't see why having one libary would be easier, you already have one libary
you just get to choose between them, I think it's nice to have an alternate
choice of libary.

Rayne, there's a difference between being just another library, and
another D runtime library.  This is not like using STL vs ATL.  You
can mix and match code using those two libraries no problem.  The
issue is that installing Tango requires messing with your _compiler_
configuration.  If you set up your compiler for one runtime library,
currently you cannot link at all with code using  the other runtime
library.

Someone will of course mention that you can using Tangobos.  It's the
best workaround right now, but it's still just yet another layer of
complication.  Also the copy of Phobos inside Tangobos tends to lag
pretty far behind DMD's.  So even that's not perfect.  And I think
Tangobos doesn't work for programs that do a lot of thread wizardry.

--bb

J Duncan <jtd514_ ameritech.net> writes:

Rayne wrote:
 Yonggang Luo Wrote:
 
 It's seems that most hard things to geting Phobos and Tango working together
is that the "object.d" is different. Because everything is derived from
"object.d", so if we want to geting Phobos and Tango working together, we must
do a hudge refactoring. But we have to do, because of Phobos and Tango will be
larger and larger. And there is such a day, we must geting Phobos and Tango
working together, it's be a very hard thing to do. 

 And we have another choice, that give up Phobos or Tango, leave one library as
the stardard! But i think this would be harder.

 
 Your starting to get annoying with this "have to do" this "have to do" that
bullshit, no one has to do anything there is no real big reason to make them
compatible with each other, if it's not important and it's not no one is going
to care.
 
 And there is a standard libary already, phobos, why discontinue tangos because
it's the standard? Simply because you don't want to be tempted into using
tango? Your really not making any sense.

True, but a fundamental issue we are dealing with now is code written 
for one library cannot be used in an application with uses the other 
library. This is getting better as people are making their code work in 
both libraries. Personally, I dont care, but it can be a real pain in 
the ass, especially to people who are new to D.

Tom S <h3r3tic remove.mat.uni.torun.pl> writes:

J Duncan wrote:
 True, but a fundamental issue we are dealing with now is code written 
 for one library cannot be used in an application with uses the other 
 library. This is getting better as people are making their code work in 
 both libraries. Personally, I dont care, but it can be a real pain in 
 the ass, especially to people who are new to D.

*gasps* ... you're alive!! :O
Now, give me all your metaobject protocols :P


-- 
Tomasz Stachowiak
http://h3.team0xf.com/
h3/h3r3tic on #D freenode