Tangobos (Was: Re: Two standard libraries?)

Robert Fraser fraserofthenight at gmail.com
Fri Jul 13 19:34:31 PDT 2007


Not sure if anyone has mentioned tangobos yet:

http://www.dsource.org/projects/tangobos/

Alan Knowles Wrote:

> I have to second this, but more from the reality of people depending on 
> tango in their libraries. From what I've seen of tango, It's a bit 
> over-designed/engineered for my taste, but I could easily change my 
> opinion one day, and I've not found any justification for using it yet.
> 
> What irk's me though is that dsource is starting to see code that 
> depends on tango. Which is adding a a huge barrier/dependancy that 
> resulted in me just completely re-writing some code from scratch rather 
> than re-using something already on dsource. I hate doing that, but 
> forcing tango on downloading my code, is not something I'm particularly 
> want to do at present.
> 
> While It doesnt sound like Walter will allow a more open commit policy 
> on phobos, I'm at a bit of a loss to see how this could be resolved..
> 
> I'd hate to see where dsource ends up with a complete mishmash of phobos 
> and tango only libraries.
> 
> Regards
> Alan
> 
> Steve Teale wrote:
> > It bothers me that Phobos and Tango seem to be completely divergent.
> > One of the things that makes a language successful is that it has a
> > good standard library.  It seems that with D, you have to be a
> > betting man - which standard library will prevail.
> > 
> > It seemes to me that given Walter's definition of the language - a
> > system programming language - that Phobos is closer to the mark.  If
> > users want a more object oriented standard library, that's all well
> > and good, but it should be a shoe-in, then if you want to use the OO
> > stuff you can, but code that's been written to work with Phobos
> > should work unmodified with other libraries.  (Note the recent
> > discussion on C++ security). Any other approach seems to me to reek
> > of vanity.
> > 
> > I am not saying that Phobos is perfect.  It has lots of omissions,
> > but I have a feeling that it is about at the right level to enable
> > authors to write the more OO stuff on top of it.
> > 
> > I'm sure that this is a sensitive subject, but there you go!  I think
> > we all agree that Walter has done a damn good job on D, so why should
> > we reject his thinking on Phobos?  I've been watching Walter for a
> > long time now, and in my book, he knows as much about his subject as
> > anyone does, especially considering the coverage that's expected of
> > him.
> > 
> > If D is to succeed, I think we should work together rather than
> > compete.  I'd like to see a much more formal system for contributors
> > to take responsibility for areas of Phobos.  Maybe it exists, but if
> > it does, it's hardly in your face.  I'd also like to see people back
> > off on trying to replace it.  Let's improve it and augment it.
> > 
> > 




More information about the Digitalmars-d mailing list