Give me a break

[Don]

Tom S wrote:
> Don wrote:
>> Tom S wrote:
>>> Don wrote:
>>>> Tom S wrote:
>>>>> Lutger wrote:
>>>>>> Tom S wrote:
>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Yigal Chripun wrote:
>>>>>> (snip)
>>>>>>>> IMHO, the Tango vs. Phobos licensing issue is the biggest 
>>>>>>>> bikeshed color
>>>>>>>> problem in the D realm and the only people that can solve it are 
>>>>>>>> the
>>>>>>>> tango devs and walter and co. of which Neither are willing to 
>>>>>>>> budge.
>>>>>>> Uhhh... try listening to Tango folks sometimes. They really have 
>>>>>>> tried.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> If you can forgive my ignorance, what is the current Tango/Phobos 
>>>>>> problem you see and refer to here? Is it related to D1 or also 
>>>>>> concerns a possible  future Tango D2?
>>>>>
>>>>> I'm mostly a Tango user, not its developer, so I might be 
>>>>> misinformed, but there doesn't seem to be any licensing issue 
>>>>> except a conceptional one.
>>>>
>>>> Not true. The issue is that Tango uses the BSD license, which is 
>>>> inappropriate for a standard library. Phobos2 now uses the Boost 
>>>> license throughout. Because of the licensing issue, Andrei and 
>>>> Walter won't look at any Tango code.
>>>> This could be fixed quite simply by adding the Boost license to the 
>>>> list
>>>> of Tango licenses (it should replace BSD in my opinion).
>>>
>>> BSD is just one of two options for Tango. What's wrong with AFL v3.0?
>>> http://dsource.org/projects/tango/wiki/License
>>
>> AFL v3.0 Section 9.
>> If You distribute or communicate copies of the Original Work or a 
>> Derivative Work, You must make a reasonable effort under the 
>> circumstances to obtain the express assent of recipients to the terms 
>> of this License.
>>
>> ---
>> Richard Stallman's comment on this was:
>> [ snip ]
>> ----
> 
> Thanks for explaining this! I was not aware of this clause. The 
> wiki/License page for Tango puts AFL 3.0 in a much better light... I'll 
> see what folks have to say on IRC :)

Those long licenses really scare me, I'm never sure what they actually mean.

>>>> The next biggest issue is module naming.
>>>
>>> Ouch :D I'll back away from that one quickly.
>>>
>>>
>>>>> As for other issues - there's very little communication between the 
>>>>> 'D Team' and the 'Tango Team'. Much could be learned and borrowed 
>>>>> from it, but you don't see that in Phobos 2. Looks like we're going 
>>>>> to end up with two 'utility libraries' that are not compatible with 
>>>>> one another and instead of complementing each other, they offer 
>>>>> ways to do the same things in a slightly different manner.
>>>>
>>>> Most of the competing functionality is with parts of Phobos which 
>>>> are going to be ditched, eg the I/O system.
>>>> In Phobos2, everything will be range-based -- and that introduces a 
>>>> conceptual difference. (much like the STL in C++ vs the C libraries).
>>>
>>> How much is 'most' here? Modules like base64, bigint, boxer/variant, 
>>> conv, date utils, filesystem ops, regex, traits, utf/unicode contain 
>>> a lot of duplicate work.
>>
>> Yes, AFAIK half of those will be ditched from Phobos. Some were 
>> copy-and-paste from each other in the first place.
> 
> Cool! But if they are ditched, does it mean that they will have 
> alternative implementations written in the nearest future or does it 
> mean that Tango will actually complement Phobos?

Clearly they'll have range-based implementations where appropriate. The 
extent to which Phobos and Tango overlap will probably depend on the 
extent to which Tango2 embraces the range paradigm.