On Thursday, February 03, 2011 14:36:06 Andrei Alexandrescu wrote: > On 2/3/11 3:51 PM, Gary Whatmore wrote: > > Steven Schveighoffer Wrote: > >> On Thu, 03 Feb 2011 16:41:08 -0500, Daniel Gibson<[email protected]> > >> > >> wrote: > >>> Am 03.02.2011 22:26, schrieb Steven Schveighoffer: > >>>> On Thu, 03 Feb 2011 16:03:55 -0500, Daniel Gibson > >>>> > >>>> <[email protected]> wrote: > >>>>> Am 03.02.2011 21:48, schrieb Tomek Sowiński: > >>>>>> Speaking of Tango, may I look at it? I remember that beef over the > >>>>>> first > >>>>>> datetime and it gives me shivers... > >>>>> > >>>>> You probably shouldn't look at the source. > >>>>> I dunno about the interface (documentation) - it's certainly not > >>>>> illegal to take > >>>>> inspiration from it, but maybe then people will again claim that > >>>>> source was > >>>>> stolen.. but when you claim that you haven't looked at the source it > >>>>> may be ok.. > >>>> > >>>> It has been posited by Tango's developers that simply looking at the > >>>> documentation of a D library isn't enough to understand the library, > >>>> you probably have looked at the source. Until they change that > >>>> opinion, I would > >>>> avoid even the documentation. > >>>> > >>>> http://lists.puremagic.com/pipermail/phobos/2010-April/000370.html > >>>> > >>>> The pertinent quote from there: > >>>> > >>>> "In my opinion, claiming a clean room implementation of an API in D is > >>>> difficult, if for no other reason that it is (due to imperfect doc > >>>> generation > >>>> etc) somewhat difficult to properly study a D API without at the same > >>>> time > >>>> reading the source (or glimpsing at it)." > >>> > >>> They can claim whatever they want.. if Tomek says he only looked at the > >>> documentation (for an idea how a good interface for a XML lib may look > >>> like) > >>> they can hardly prove anything. > >> > >> This exact situation was the case of the prior-mentioned infringement > >> accusation. > > > > It's sad to read how much these Tango assholes are trying to wreck the > > whole language. I doubt their implementation is any better than the high > > performance C++ libraries. I've been using RapidXML before and it's damn > > fast. My recipe for success would be: use the Boost license, do a clean > > room implementation inspired by the best C++ code, use ranges instead of > > slices or iterators, use Phobos free function and naming conventions, > > get Andrei's blessing. This will teach the Tango douchebags a lesson or > > two. > > > > They always complain about us doing NIH code. But they're forcing us! > > I think it's reasonable of me to ask avoiding reopening a debate that > has little chance of being solved by emotional rhetoric. > > Regarding taking inspiration from Tango code, I don't know what the > exact licensing issues are but the lesson learned during past incidents > is clear: Phobos contributors should conservatively avoid looking at > Tango. This is not difficult because there are many XML libraries of > good quality and performance. So let's.
Agreed. - Jonathan M Davis
