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