Tango - shallower hierarchy (was: Phango - questions)

[Marcin Kuszczak]

Sean Kelly wrote:

> How would you suggest things be arranged?  To me, the reasoning behind
> tango.core makes sense.  Array extends the functionality of a built-in
> type, so it belongs in core, Thread is essentially a language feature so
> it belongs in core, BitArray is a common and basic type, so is Variant,
> etc.  So I don't have any ideas for how to better separate things.
> 

I just and only say: please move concurrency support to separate package.
Everything else should stay where it is.

> By the way, I know you may consider it an implementor point of view, but
> another reason for core being distinct was motivated by distribution
> concerns.  It is currently possible to ship and use a Tango library
> containing only core, stdc, and sys (the latter two for their C
> headers).  Spreading this functionality out would make for a more
> confusing core/runtime distribution if we ever decide to do so.  Such
> modularity was originally intended to be a selling point of the library,
> and I will admit to have been somewhat surprised that most people don't
> seem to care about it.
> 
> 
> Sean


Your argumentation is based on false assumptions. I did not proposed to
spread or drop whole Core module. I just proposed to move threading into
separate package.

Why my proposition (as a whole) would be an advantage?
(http://www.digitalmars.com/webnews/newsgroups.php?art_group=digitalmars.D&article_id=62424)

I think that it will be possible to more precisely define packages and that
way make it easier to find needed modules. Basically you will get:

tango.core
- simple modules, used relatively often in user code, spread in whole user
code, no close logical dependencies with other modules. Package for modules
which are logically too small to be putted into specific area package.

tango.<area> e.g. net, sys, math, io, concurrency, gui etc.
- packages for specific areas of programming. When you write program you
will probably need just a few of them. Modules in one area package are
logically interdependent between each other. Only loose dependencies
between area modules.

tango.util
- interdependant modules forming logical bigger entities, which can be
consider as tool or utility. It's more than packages in tango.<area> as
they creates bigger components, while tango.<area> packages don't have much
sense without other packages.

I think that such a structure is much more similar to way developer is
working on his program. When I write program and I need to make something
in background then I think: concurrency (not Core!), when I want to
transform one type into other I think: conversion (I even don't know what
to think now in current Tango state), when I write http server I think:
networking etc. etc. 

It will be much more like searching by Tag, not in hierarchy. Please notice
that this way seems to be much more intuitive for people than deep
hierarchies of logical connections (which are not always easy to
recognize). Examples?: collection of my photos in Digikam,
http://del.icio.us, google search, tags on web pages and a lot more. Anti
example? my internet bookmarks, which I am trying to put in hierarchy and
never have enough time for this. Last time I get to conclusion that
maintaining such a hierarchy is just more troubles than its worth. I almost
never use my bookmarks because its so much faster to write keyword in
Google...

I think that these are very fair arguments, and Tango people will take them
into consideration. My intent is not to start another flame war. I stated
clearly in my first post that I like Tango and plan to use it in future
anyway...

-- 
Regards
Marcin Kuszczak (Aarti_pl)
-------------------------------------
Ask me why I believe in Jesus - http://zapytaj.dlajezusa.pl (en/pl)
Doost (port of few Boost libraries) - http://www.dsource.org/projects/doost/
-------------------------------------