Any chance to call Tango as Extended Standard Library

[John Reimer]

Hello Steven,

> "Piotrek" wrote
> 
>> Hello!
>> 
>> It's just an idea. After reading about issues on disallowing DWT to
>> stay in standardization area (Anomaly on Wiki4D GuiLibraries page)
>> some question appeared in my mind. For propaganda sake isn't it
>> better to not make such a big division between phobos and tango in
>> the module naming? Logically:
>> 
>> phobos -> std
>> tango  -> stdex (not tango -> tango)
> Let's not forget the licensing issues.  Tango is incompatible with
> some developers license wise, as you must include attribution for
> Tango in any derivative works (i.e. compiled binaries).  Phobos has a
> less restrictive opt-in policy.  I think Walter intends to keep it
> that way, at least for DMD.  Note that other compilers are free to use
> Tango or their own standard library, the D spec is pretty free from
> library references.
> 
> With regards to Tango for D2.  It is going to happen.  It may not be
> tomorrow, but it will probably be done this year.  To answer some
> questions throughout this discussion, it will look similar to
> Tango/D1, but will utilize many of the features of D2, as well as obey
> the requirements.  For example, it's not simply going to cast away
> const to keep the implementation closer to D1.  So it will look
> different than Tango/D1 and most likely, will not be one code base.
> Which means, people will have to maintain both, which is no small
> feat.  But it can (and will) be done.  I like D2 too much to not do it
> :)
> 
> The Tango D2 branch currently in SVN compiles and runs on Linux DMD
> 2.019. We have basic functionality for many of the examples, but not
> all unit tests pass.  However, it should be usable to test simple
> code.  So far, we have ported completely tango.core and
> tango.util.log.  We have yet to incorporate druntime, as I didn't want
> to tackle issues that might be in druntime as well as porting issues.
> I think I will try to upgrade to 2.023, as it seems druntime/compiler
> interaction is getting a lot more stable, and then continue porting.
> 
> I don't see Tango and Phobos becoming more like one or the other, but
> as others have said, there are definite sections of code that can be
> used from both without interference.  I/O is not one of them, and I
> don't see that changing.  But due to the open source nature, you can
> port or re-implement features of one library into the other, so while
> you may be choosing between two different styles, you shouldn't have
> to choose one or the other for functionality.
> 
> I also don't think this is a bad thing.  One of two things will
> happen. Either one library totally dominates the other, and eventually
> everyone starts using the more popular one (the Beta/VHS route), or
> both libraries flourish, and due to the common runtime, can be used
> concurrently in projects (the KDE/GNOME route).  Either way, I don't
> see the current rift between Tango/Phobos being a major detriment to
> D.  It will be short-lived IMO.
> 
> -Steve
> 


A fair analysis, but I think incomplete.  Once again, the problem has more 
to do with the perception of new users and outsiders.  I believe those of 
is in here, those of us who have frustrated and agonized over D over the 
last few years are going to be in a much better position of accepting the 
situation as it develops: we've grown with it, so our sympathies are well 
rooted -- we may very much enjoy having the option of using either of or 
both of two great libraries.  I can easily agree that your analysis has some 
sense to it because of that.  


But, as I said before, the hardest part remains in finding a method to promote 
it as a "good thing" to everyone else who has no real emotional attatchment 
to the language, those who see learning a language as a synonymous with learning 
one "standard" library (because that seems to be the general history of programming 
languages).  Maybe I'm wrong about this one (I hope I am wrong, and you are 
right), but I don't think it's wise to completely discredit the possibility 
of a problem in having two popular libraries at the core of D 2.0.  If the 
libraries do go the Beta/VHS route... well that's just a mercy for D.   


Still trying to think positively,  of course. :)

-JJR