Tango quibbles - please write tickets so we can track them

[kris]

Janice Caron wrote:
> On 9/16/07, kris <foo at bar.com> wrote:
>>> Janice Caron wrote:
>>>> Module names in mixed case!? Did the Tango folk not read the D style
>>>> guide where it says "Module and package names are all lower case, and
>>>> only contain the characters [a..z][0..9][_]", or did they just
>>>> purposefully decide to avoid it? If the former, that was amateurish;
>>>> if the latter, it was petty.

>> Do you *honestly* think we've spent this formidable effort in creating a
>> rich, fully-featured and cost-free library, for people like you to use
>> (if you so desire), just because we need to satisfy an urge to be
>> "petty" or "amateurish" ?
> 

> That was just a first impression. It was my *honest* first impression,
> but it was still just a first impression [snip]

First impressions are one thing whilst assertions over how things came 
to be are quite another. There's a lot of people involved around Tango 
... I'm thinking hard, but truly don't know of even one individual who 
could possibly fit your broadly generous and most humble assertions :p

To illustrate the distinction: I now have a first impression of yourself 
yet, unlike you, I'm not immediately asserting that you're either an 
amateur or a wanker ;) Capice?

Everyone's opinion is valuable to us at Tango. Period.


 > but yes, I was being honest.

To write off an extensive library as being constructed by an 
"amateurish" group (as you noted) simply because it doesn't adhere to 
some minor stylistic suggestion is, well -- to apply your terminology -- 
rather petty. Is it not? Certainly not helpful in the constructive sense?

I mean, there appears only to be some misunderstanding on your part 
(Stdout.format et al), combined with some distaste for one specific 
stylistic concern?

Please, write up a ticket for the specific things you don't like? It may 
be of benefit to others? As a ticket, we can track its progress and 
ensure it gets addressed in a timely fashion. Much more effective than 
idle chit-chat over tea: http://www.dsource.org/projects/tango/newticket

(oh, you may need to be a dsource.org 'member' to write tickets)


 >> You assume that we didn't try to do that?
 >
 > Again, not trying to be offensive, but actually yes, I did assume
 > that. That could be a failure of imagination on my part, of course,
 > but the website provides no explanation of (a) why this functionality
 > could not have been provided in the form of add-ons to Phobos

I believe it /does/ talk about it. But then there's hardly a crushing 
need for that to be plastered across the front-page, particularly since 
it has never come up as a concern before. Wouldn't you agree?

Without hitting on a whole lot of detail, the Tango runtime support 
(which includes threads, exceptions, etc) has always been beyond what 
Phobos offered. For example, Tango has fibers (Mik & Sean). That needs 
to be tied into the GC also (which it is), and makes the runtime layer 
incompatible with the Phobos equivalent. Tango also has internal support 
for exception backtraces which hooks in with, for example, the 
Flectioned library from Thomas. The import path structure (or lack 
thereof) within the Phobos library, along with the namespace collisions, 
unfortunately lends itself to a lack of modularity and scalability. The 
Tango GC was both very fast and known to be free of deadlock, while the 
Phobos one was not until comparatively recently etc. etc. These are not 
intended as criticisms of Phobos, but they and many more became reason 
enough to take the path that the Tango folks did.



 >> So, help us clean up the Documentation?
 >> The biggest problem for us is a simple one: we need people to help us
 >> with the doc. Wanna help?
 >
 > Vicious circle there! :-) I can't document something I don't
 > understand, and I can't understand something which isn't well
 > documented.

Without additional help, there's only so much a group of motivated 
volunteers can do in a specific time-frame.


 > There are just so many things that I
 > /do/ like in the world that are also begging for my spare time.

You're not exactly alone in that regard. Implication aside, it's just 
fine that you don't have an interest. Absolutely no probnoblem at all.

However, I do suspect you'd enjoy a whole lot more of it if the doc were 
better in places, and you gave it a little time. Failing that, some 
constructive criticism (especially in a Ticket) is far more helpful than 
the "you ppl must be morons" approach ?


 > Perhaps this might surprise you, but some of us /like/ comprehensive
 > lists of objects and methods, and find it the best way to understand
 > things. (In fact, my preference would be, listing objects and methods
 > in hyperlinked fashion).

Then perhaps you didn't look very far? On the *home* page is a link to 
this: http://www.dsource.org/projects/tango/docs/current/

It lives directly below the Ref Manual link on the home page: 
http://www.dsource.org/projects/tango/wiki

Yes, the doc could be better overall. Some of it is just awesome, whilst 
some of it kinda sucks (my writing skills, for example). The api doc 
doesn't link together in the fashion we'd like it to (per Javadoc and 
others), since the tools for D documentation are still somewhat 
immature. I understand some of the api doc presentation may occasionally 
be broken, due to minor bugs in DDoc?

Hey!! Perhaps you'd like to contribute something in that arena instead?

Anyway, click on a link, you get doc. Click on the BigBlueTitle in the 
doc, you get the source code. Click on the other blue links, you get a 
wiki page where people (such as yourself) can add notes to share with 
others (which can then get rolled into the main doc). It's really not 
too hard?


 > And
 > honestly, the styistic issues matter very greatly in that appraisal.

Plural? I thought there was just one stylistic concern, about the module 
names or something? Seriously, it ain't easy keeping track of such 
things in the NG when there's a list of existing tickets to address.

Please, write a ticket! :-D