The path to unity

[John Reimer]

Hello Andrei,

> Denis Koroskin wrote:
> 
>> Well put, thank you. Everyone finds this situation annoying. That's
>> the Number One problem of the D (remember "top five" poll?).
>> 
>> The problem as I see it is that there is an overlapping functionality
>> in
>> Phobos and Tango (std.stream.Stream/tango.io.Conduit etc).
>> The solution as I see it to redesign Phobos and Tango by removing
>> dead
>> (buggy, unsupported) code, separating libraries functionality and
>> removing duplication.
>> I'd remove from Phobos:
>> 
>> std.
>> openrj
>> bigint (old one, by Janice)
>> regexp
>> socket
>> xml
>> much, much more (see more complete list in my previous post[1]).
> These don't work all too well. But there's another issue with the
> approach you suggest. There's no dialectics. You assume that the above
> are the last word on the matter uttered by phobos. But things may be
> rewritten quite a bit for D2. Speaking of your short list above,
> indeed openrj sucks and should disappear (don't get me started).
> Bigint should be replaced by Don's implementation. Regexp should be
> rewritten to use ranges and templatized characters everywhere (you'd
> be able to read text from stdin using a regexp as a separator...
> anyone who's tried that knows that's quite a feat). Socket also needs
> to be rewritten to support ranges. Xml too, in addition to replacing
> the slow delegates with fast aliases. All of these should use the full
> power and expressiveness of D2, not transport their old design to it
> (as they are doing now).
> 
>> and suggest/force users use tango instead.
>> 
>> What's left in Phobos? A fundamental part *only*:
>> 
>> std.
>> math (including IEEE and BigInteger) [2]
>> range
>> traits
>> algorithm
>> contracts
>> atomics (arguably)
>> date/time (arguably)
> What happened to std.random? (I just changed it to support the range
> interface; all random generators are infinite input ranges.) And what
> happened to the up-and-coming std.matrix, which is supposed to provide
> a representational lingua franca for a variety of linear algebra
> libraries?
> 
>> So /any/ D compiler distribution would contain:
>> 
>> core (druntime)
>> std  (phobos)
>> tango
>> 'druntime' would provide an essential functionality to run D programs
>> on
>> other platforms: gc, compiler, runtime, etc.
>> std - provide simple and generic functionality, that can be used in
>> conjunction (unix style): algorithm, range, contracts, math[2], some
>> helpers/utils, etc.
>> tango - extended functionality: network, io (including console io),
>> xml,
>> etc
>> Tango would depend on Phobos (which is now *very* tiny) and both
>> depend on druntime. I believe Tango will greatly benefit from using
>> contracts, ranges and algorithms, that are absent from it.
>> 
> I think that would be great. The way I see things, however, things
> like ranges percolate through other parts of the library so strongly
> and so visibly, they are bound to decisively influence a lot more than
> just implementation internals.
> 
>> Competition is good, but only at early stages.
>> 
> And then what? The Communist Utopia takes over?
> 
>> Tenders/Bids are only exist to choose the best one and stick with it
>> - the others are dropped at some point. The same thing should happen
>> with Tango/Phobos now - inferior functionality should be dropped in
>> favor or superior one. (It doesn't necessarily mean that either
>> Phobos or Tango should be dropped entirely, but rather some modules -
>> std.regexp vs. tango.text.Regex, std.socket vs tango.net.*, etc).
>> 
> Sure, that's great. Et que le meilleur gagne. But I'm not sure why in
> this reasoning you suppose my gonads are empty. No. They are just busy
> with other stuff. Conversely, consider I took your advice six months
> ago. That means there would have been no std.algorithm, no std.range,
> and no small but crucial language changes that made them possible
> (notably local instantiation). My opinion of the two is that they are
> a damn fine piece of design, and I don't even pat myself on the back
> because much of the design isn't mine; it's Stepanov's (in concept)
> and Walter's (in the language that allows expression of said concept).
> My perception is that others also seem to enjoy that design. So
> probably it's good I did /not/ take advice to drop phobos. But somehow
> now seems to be a better moment to do so. But if I were you I'd ask,
> dude, you mentioned containers and all that range topology stuff -
> anything interesting coming down the pike? This is an important
> question, because it's tied to a larger one - are Java containers the
> best that D2 can do? And if not, how would D2's containers look like?
> 
>> Does anyone agree/disagree with me? Anyone see other solutions?
>> Please, don't stay away from discussion.
>> 
> I actually plan to stay away from this discussion henceforth. I've
> said too much already, and the first-to-last thing I need (before a
> bullet in my head) is being drawn in a political discussion. Bottom
> line, I'd completely agree with you if the situation was stagnant. But
> right now it's anything but stagnant. And that changes everything.
> 
>> PS. Andrei is about to finish TDPL. What does it say about Phobos,
>> Tango and the situation around "std libraries"?
>> 
> What situation?
> 
>> What part of Phobos does it cover? I *really* hope it doesn't say
>> much about anything apart from std.range/algorithm/traits/contracts.
>> 
> I think you can rest assured that the likes of std.openrj will not be
> mentioned :o|.
> 
> Andrei
> 


Well, the funny thing is that you've effectively said more here than you 
usually do about the issue, and I think that's good. :)


It helped that you expressed plainly what you think needs fixing in Phobos. 
  Your range and algorithm work do look quite good, and you seem committed 
to the task of improving D.  These are all good signs, and I think a lot 
of people here are indeed thankful for what you are doing and what you have 
done.


I fully understand the community's discomfort in waiting for some sort of 
resolution to occur  (although I guess it's getting tedious to hear it so 
oft repeated).   If there are things that can be fixed/merged/shared between 
the two libraries, I suppose it would be good to work towards that at minimum. 
 The exchange of emails between you and Don would be very good. :)


I think it's fair to say that some things will never merge, and shouldn't 
given their different design philosophies.  But that shouldn't remove any 
hope of exchanging quality contributions between the two.  It is still my 
wish to see Tango turn into a kind of "third" party library such that its 
core is no longer necessary.  Maybe this is what druntime can do for it... 
and maybe this means integrating more things in core.  I don't know.  But 
I'm certainly game to see something happen.


-JJR