questions on PhanTango 'merger' (was Merging Tangobos into Tango) - long-term vision

[Lars Ivar Igesund]

Aarti_pl wrote:

> Don Clugston pisze:
>> Seems to me, that there are actually TWO phobos-es (phobi ?).
>> There's "core phobos", (std.file, etc) which has the basic i/o.
>> There's also "complete phobos" which includes some disorganised stuff
>> which has far more limited appeal (std.openrj, std.base64, std.uri, etc).
>> Seems to me that when people talk about phobos-vs-tango, it's core
>> phobos which has the biggest appeal, and the extended phobos which is
>> most disliked.
>> Could phobos be trimmed down to this core set?
>> (Make the extended phobos be available as a separate download, or at
>> least clearly distinguished?)
> 
> 
> I was thinking about something similar also...
> 
> Having in mind that there will be (unfortunately long) process of
> allowing Phobos & Tango coexist together I was thinking about
> positioning both libraries in a D landscape.
> 
> ---
> 
> As I see there is demand among people for two kind of libraries:
> 
> - library for lower level stuff, which should be fast, simple, small,
> easy to learn and use. Possible applications: embedded devices, quick
> hacks, scripting, game's engines, kernel programming etc.
> 
> - library for higher level stuff, which gives flexibility, encapsulation
> and easy way to work in big teams. Possible applications: desktop
> programs, advanced networking, distributed computing etc.

I highly disagree with the notion that there is any kind of sharp
distinction between those two groups.

> 
> ---
> 
> That said, I see good place for both libraries here Phobos and Tango:
> - Phobos should do lower level stuff. Functionalities in Phobos which
> belongs to second group should be dropped from it.
> - Tango should do higher level stuff. Functionalities in Tango which
> belongs to first group should be dropped from it.

If both Phobos and Tango is part of the standard library, it would make
sense to clean out duplicate functionality, but regarding what is there
today, I would still use the "low-level" functionality of Tango, not
Phobos. Biased, yes, but for a reason.

> ---
> 
> In such a scenario Tango could be also delivered packaged with compiler,
> but it would be not necessary to use it for writing simple applications
> (no code in Phobos calls Tango). When someone needs higher level
> functionality she can use Tango. When using Tango, probably Phobos will
> be necessary also (Tango libraries can call Phobos).
> 
> To sum up:
> 1. Runtime (from Tango) - one library
> 2. Lower level stuff Phobos - second library
> 3. Higher level stuff Tango - third library
> 
> Everything mentioned above packed with compiler in easily installable
> packages for Windows/Linux/MacOs. :-)

If you do a s/Phobos/Tango on your 3 points above, you have correctly
summarized Tango :)

-- 
Lars Ivar Igesund
blog at http://larsivi.net
DSource, #d.tango & #D: larsivi
Dancing the Tango