why a part of D community do not want go to D2 ?

[Jacob Carlborg]

On 2010-11-09 22:45, Andrei Alexandrescu wrote:
> On 11/9/10 12:33 PM, Jacob Carlborg wrote:
>> On 2010-11-09 17:43, Andrei Alexandrescu wrote:
>>> On 11/9/10 1:42 AM, Jacob Carlborg wrote:
>>>> On 2010-11-08 20:55, Andrei Alexandrescu wrote:
>>>>> It is my perception (though I might be wrong) that the dichotomy has
>>>>> become to some extent political. D2 offers little political
>>>>> incentive to
>>>>> a Tango port. Tango is currently the de facto standard library for
>>>>> D1 as
>>>>> the vast majority of D1 users use D1 and Tango in conjunction, which
>>>>> precludes use of the underpowered Phobos1 (D1's de jure standard
>>>>> library). Due to Sean's work on making druntime independently
>>>>> available,
>>>>> porting to D2 would lower Tango's status from the standard library to
>>>>> one of the libraries that may be used in conjunction with Phobos2.
>>>>
>>>> Here's the problem with that: since Sean basically forked the Tango
>>>> runtime, removed any non DMD specific code and any code for a platform
>>>> that DMD doesn't support. And stopped contributing to Tango while
>>>> others
>>>> improved the Tango runtime we're back at square one with two
>>>> incompatiable runtimes and the Tango runtime still seems to be better.
>>>
>>> It's not difficult to offer e.g. an incompatible C runtime that is
>>> slightly better than the standard one. People generally don't do that
>>> but instead add libraries on top of that because they understand the
>>> advantages of compatibility.
>>
>> There was a good "standard" library that you forked and never added back
>> any changes to it.
>
> This must be some confusion. I didn't fork anything. Besides, it's not
> useful to fall into the pattern of finger pointing.

Ok, "you" wasn't not a good word in this case and I apologize. What I 
meant with "you" was "you" as a group consisting of the people working 
on Phobos and druntime and/or the people that agreed (I'm assuming it 
was more than one person) we should build a new runtime for D2 based on 
the Tango runtime. I guess I just should have written "Sean".

>>> I wouldn't be surprised if Tango chose to turn away from compatibility
>>> for the second time (be it theoretical compatibility for now since there
>>> is no Tango for D2). The technical reasons are dwindling and became
>>> tenuous to argue for, but however weak they are, they could be used to
>>> promote a political motivation: a Tango/D2 offering would come again as
>>> an either-or proposition for a standard library that precludes usage of
>>> Tango2 and Phobos2 together. In my opinion that would be an extremely
>>> dangerous gambit.
>>
>> Clearly we don't see this in the same way. I see it like this, because
>> Tango was first it's druntime that chose to turn away from compatibility.
>
> That would be a tenuous point to make in more than one way. Druntime was
> a major effort to foster runtime standardization made by its author
> himself and with intentions that I consider most transparent. I'd find
> it very difficult to concoct a hypothesis in which Sean comes across as
> not acting in the best interest of the D community.

Yes, I also think that Sean acted in the best interest of the D community.

> That very concern - the best interest of the D community - has
> unequivocally been the reason for which Sean and other chose to leave
> petty fights to others and join Phobos, which has no political agenda.
> That's supposed to tell someone something. You are gladly invited to
> attempt to convince me otherwise, but the sheer facts at hand would make
> it difficult for you to build a case. I mean it's possible - for any
> number of good reasons - to ignore mounting evidence for some time, but
> at some point the waking up and smelling of the coffee is inevitable.

I can agree with most of this and I think it's ridiculous that some 
Tango contributors don't want to contribute their code to 
Phobos/druntime. But I don't agree that it's the best interest of the D 
community that Sean stopped conributing to Tango. That's basically why 
we have this problem he never folded back any changes to Tango (as far 
as I know).

>>>> For this to work the Tango team and the druntime
>>>> contributors/maintainers have collaborate and work together on a
>>>> runtime.
>>>
>>> That runtime is druntime. If there is no understanding of that at Tango,
>>> that is suicide.
>>
>> Apparently not, since Sean ripped out all that wasn't necessary for
>> Phobos but is necessary for Tango. Why are you blaming everything on
>> Tango all the time?
>
> There's no reason to get up in arms. I didn't blame anything on anyone,
> just stated my view of the state of affairs. I'm hardly vested
> emotionally in the matter so I'm not interested in dramatic posturing,
> assigning blame, or drawing sweeping conclusions. One thing I would be
> interested in is improving things going forward. I think that will be
> possible once we all let bygones be bygones and see what we can do to
> push D forward.
>
>
> Andrei

That's good, I also want to push D forward. It's just that sometimes I'm 
having a hard time to believe what you're writing above (last 
section/paragraph) when reading other posts by you.

-- 
/Jacob Carlborg