Don wrote: > John Reimer wrote: >> Hello dsimcha, >> >>> == Quote from Daniel Keep (daniel.keep.li...@gmail.com)'s article >>> >>>> Piotrek wrote: >>>> >>>>> Lars Ivar Igesund wrote: >>>>> >>>>>> Tango will stay Tango (and tango.*). The above naming assumes that >>>>>> Tango will depend on Phobos, and it will not. >>>>>> >>>>> I see. >>>>> >>>>> Cheers >>>>> >>>> (Note: speaking as merely an infrequent contributor to Tango; my >>>> opinion >>>> is my own and does not reflect on those of the Master Dancers, or the >>>> ruling council of glittery-shoed programmers.) >>>> (Warning: semi-rant ahead.) >>>> The problem is that Phobos and Tango are diametrically opposed in >>>> almost >>>> every conceivable way. Bringing them together would be like trying >>>> to >>>> bring matter and anti-matter together; you're just going to blow >>>> yourself up. >>>> It's best if you think of Phobos as being Python and Tango as being >>>> Java. Phobos implements a relatively flat (if messy) hierarchy of >>>> simple, fat classes. For example, IO is done using the Stream >>>> interfaces, each one implements all the methods you'd probably need >>>> to >>>> work with streams. >>>> Tango, on the other hand, implements a very deep (if confusing) >>>> hierarchy of simple, component interfaces that get plugged together. >>>> Unlike Phobos, IO in Tango has many layers and components, each of >>>> which >>>> is very narrowly defined, allowing you to plug them together however >>>> you >>>> like. >>>> The problem is that neither of these approaches is WRONG. They're >>>> both >>>> valid and arguably better in certain circumstances. What's more, the >>>> continued existence of both shows that there are people who believe >>>> in >>>> each of them (not necessarily at the same time, but there you go.) >>>> So let's say we combined them into std.* and stdex.*. Why is Tango >>>> stdex? Why isn't Tango std.* and Phobos stdsimple? >>>> Ok, ignoring egos, the problem is that they wouldn't work together >>>> anyway. An old favourite of mine is (again, sorry about this) IO. >>>> Phobos strives to be compatible with the C IO library; so you can >>>> interleave Phobos and C IO calls and it's all gravy. >>>> Tango takes C out the back and shoots it before burying it >>>> upside-down >>>> at a crossroads with a steak through the heart and salting the earth. >>>> You CAN mix Tango and C IO calls, but you really have no idea what >>>> order >>>> the output's going to arrive in. >>>> I remember Andrei getting antsy about this a while back; why break >>>> compatibility?! Because Tango's IO was faster this way. Neither one >>>> of >>>> them was 'right' because they both had legitimate points of view. >>>> Really, it all boils down to this: there *is no* one right way. Yes, >>>> it's more confusing. But it's a problem with programming in general; >>>> programming is all about looking at your options and making a >>>> decision >>>> on the matter. >>>> -- Daniel >>> Wow. Excellent analysis. One thing I'd like to add is that Phobos >>> tends to be >>> much more focused on the bleeding edge, with pretty much all >>> development happening >>> on the D2 branch, while Tango is more focused on targeting stable >>> compilers. > >>> Also, another way I would summarize the situation is that Phobos >>> focuses on first >>> making simple operations simple first and foremost, and then worries >>> about making >>> complicated operations possible, while Tango does just the opposite. >> >> I don't know if that is strictly true. In Tango's defense, I believe it >> has tried quite hard to move in the direction of making simple things >> simple even under the restrictions of its own philosophy :). If you >> examine the progression of Tango revisions, there has been a significant >> "cleanup" in progress that appears to be simplifying what was originally >> verbose. >> >>> I've said this before, but I think it's not so bad for D to have two >>> standard libraries with different design philosophies, at least in >>> principle, though the inability to use both side by side on D1 is >>> obviously a bad thing. There are times when I like the Phobos "keep >>> it simple, stupid" approach and times when I want Tango's "everything >>> but the kitchen sink" approach. There are a few things that I think >>> would help a lot here: >>> >> >>> 1. Both Phobos and Tango should adopt these opposite design >>> philosophies, which are true de facto anyhow, officially. This will >>> prevent excessive feature envy and duplication of effort and allow >>> newcomers to determine which is best for their everyday use. >>> >> Like I said, I believe Tango has worked harder at doing this than you >> might think. I don't think Phobos cares to look at the opposite >> philosophy because it really doesn't merge well with it's intended >> goals. Tango can afford some brevity because it started at the verbose >> end. >> >> >>> 2. The creation of druntime so that Phobos and Tango can be used side >>> by side is a huge step forward. Once D2 is out of alpha and Tango is >>> ported to D2, people will be able to use their preferred lib most of >>> the time and the other when their preferred lib has some missing >>> functionality. This will also greatly simplify 3rd party libs. >>> >> >> >> This somehow parallels my original thinking too which I've mentioned >> before. I am all for the druntime, and it certainly will be a net gain >> if both Tango V2 (if it ever surfaces complete) and Phobos can share it >> once D2 is stable. But I'm afraid, it is still a grave difficulty for >> new users to face two different libraries. Now that I've waited and >> think about it longer, I'm not sure what to make of it. How does one >> promote this twin package deal for D. I predict that the first person >> that finds a clever way to promote D 2.0 and it's shiny new twin-library >> / pick-your-style feature will be a D hero forever. ;-) >> >> No, it's not bad. > > <small rant> > I completely disagree. I think the two libraries is a disaster. I can > see that so many people have been exposed to a lifetime of propaganda > that "competition is a good thing", but it's just propaganda. > Competition inevitably means wasted effort, and it's obvious in D. > </small rant> > > Note, however that the gulf between Phobos and Tango mostly exists in > I/O; and C++ also has two I/O packages (the one inherited from C, and > the awful iostreams). So I don't think this is a big a problem as > stated. If we work at it, we could move the difference to be entirely a > I/O difference. But that would require willingless to do it, and I'm not > sure that it's really there. > > <big rant> > In my attempt to bring both libraries together I have experienced > reactions from both sides which appeared hostile (or at least reluctant) > to a merger. Apart from Sean and myself, I don't see much evidence that > people actually want them to merge. They just want the other one to > disappear. > </big rant>
As a user of D primarily and of the standard libraries secondly I see this reluctance to solve the library situation as the single biggest threat to D. It creates a division in the community and an uncertainty of which library to base my own libraries on. If I use one and the other wins the competition I have to redo a lot of work. It's also a headache when distributing code as I don't know which functions and packages I can assume exists. This split actually has made me put some of my own projects on hold while trying to see if we eventually get a merge or one side wins. Through here lack of time also contributes. I sinercelly hope this situation gets resolved as the current situation can be really discoraging for both new and old D developers.
