questions on PhanTango 'merger' - long-term vision

[Aarti_pl]

Lars Ivar Igesund pisze:
> Aarti_pl wrote:
> 
>> 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.
> 

True. I didn't say that there is sharp distinction. :-)


>> 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.

Yes, but having overlapping functionality in both library would not be 
so bad. Especially when you could "merge" both libraries and allow to 
use them together. There is clearly a need for both style libraries, as 
there were quite a few votes supporting Phobos style.

And Walter is not willing to drop Phobos in favor of Tango. (Probably 
just because he is supporting Phobos like style of standard library :-D)

>> ---
>>
>> 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 :)
> 

:-)

Probably few modules from Tango core could find its home in Phobos. You 
wrote also about free functions in Tango - it's basically style 
characterizing Phobos, so they could be also part of Phobos.

BR
Marcin Kuszczak
(aarti_pl - www.zapytajmnie.com)