Re: D2 port of Tango
Another thing, I got many problems generating documentation. $ make doc -f posix.mak ... tango/core/RuntimeTraits.d(569): use of typedef is deprecated; use alias instead tango/core/RuntimeTraits.d(569): use of typedef is deprecated; use alias instead ... Me too! I've fixed that. Solution was just to replace typedef with alias on Line 569. Just do `git pull`.
Re: D2 port of Tango
Al 27/12/11 14:41, En/na mta`chrono ha escrit: Yes, but phobos is called phobos instead of phobos2. I'll think about it ;-). h, phobos for dmd2 is not a fork of phobos for dmd1 ;-) Another thing, I got many problems generating documentation. $ make doc -f posix.mak ... tango/core/RuntimeTraits.d(569): use of typedef is deprecated; use alias instead tango/core/RuntimeTraits.d(569): use of typedef is deprecated; use alias instead ... -- Jordi Sayol
Re: D2 port of Tango
Ok, so if this tango will be quite different than the original one, is not a good idea to change its name? Just to make it more clear and less confusing. Tango2 is enough, I think. Yes, but phobos is called phobos instead of phobos2. I'll think about it ;-).
Re: D2 port of Tango
Al 27/12/11 14:04, En/na mta`chrono ha escrit:
If you start use phobos and tango more intensively, you'll ran into
different problems.
Consider this: Cannot implicit convert struct timeval to struct timeval.
Just because there are two definitions, one in druntime and another in
tango.
Sooner or later you'll get crazy. I'm going to remove everything that's
already present in druntime.
import std.stdio;
import tango.io.Stdout;
void main()
{
writeln(hello phobos!);
Stdout(hello tango!).newline;
}
Properly compiles and run.
So, is it not a good idea to join forces to advance more strongly, since
pursued the same goal?
Best regards,
Okay, I've also changed a little bit of tango's original api. People
might dislike this. But it's a little bit more KISS (Keep it small and
simple).
tango.utils.container.more.Stack.
Why not just use
tango.container.Stack ?
Ok, so if this tango will be quite different than the original one, is not a
good idea to change its name? Just to make it more clear and less
confusing. Tango2 is enough, I think.
--
Jordi Sayol
Re: D2 port of Tango
Al 24/12/11 14:20, En/na mta`chrono ha escrit:
Unlike SiegeLord's branch I've removed tango's runtime and build on top
of druntime. This step is inevitable in order to make tango and phobos
work side by side.
SiegeLord's branch do not need druntime lib to be present on the system when
compiling tango-d2, and the resulting libraries can be used together with
phobos.
If you start use phobos and tango more intensively, you'll ran into
different problems.
Consider this: Cannot implicit convert struct timeval to struct timeval.
Just because there are two definitions, one in druntime and another in
tango.
Sooner or later you'll get crazy. I'm going to remove everything that's
already present in druntime.
import std.stdio;
import tango.io.Stdout;
void main()
{
writeln(hello phobos!);
Stdout(hello tango!).newline;
}
Properly compiles and run.
So, is it not a good idea to join forces to advance more strongly, since
pursued the same goal?
Best regards,
Okay, I've also changed a little bit of tango's original api. People
might dislike this. But it's a little bit more KISS (Keep it small and
simple).
tango.utils.container.more.Stack.
Why not just use
tango.container.Stack ?
Re: D2 port of Tango
Al 27/12/11 14:54, En/na Jordi Sayol ha escrit: Al 27/12/11 14:41, En/na mta`chrono ha escrit: Yes, but phobos is called phobos instead of phobos2. I'll think about it ;-). h, phobos for dmd2 is not a fork of phobos for dmd1 ;-) Another thing, I got many problems generating documentation. $ make doc -f posix.mak ... tango/core/RuntimeTraits.d(569): use of typedef is deprecated; use alias instead tango/core/RuntimeTraits.d(569): use of typedef is deprecated; use alias instead ... Me too! -- Epíleg
Re: D2 port of Tango
Al 25/12/11 18:17, En/na Damian Ziemba ha escrit: They got 2 different goals. SiegeLord wants to keep as much of original Tango as possible and make it D2-wish while mt'chrono changes Tango itself, because he thinks something is wrong-designed (or he doesn't get idea properly). tango.net.* for example. That's all, that's why there are 2 branches. Thanks for your comment. Then, if mt'chrono change Tango itself, isn't a good ide to change a bit its name? as Tango2 or whatever, just to be more distinguishable from SiegeLord's branch. And SiegeLord's branch *IS* built on top of druntime. Extra features that Tango runtime had, are inside version blocks, so you may want use them also :) But out of box it works with druntime without any additional steps. I'm sure you're right but, I just say that SiegeLord's branch do not need druntime.a library present on a Linux system to be compiled, and mt'chrono's branch yes. Best regards, -- Jordi Sayol smime.p7s Description: S/MIME Cryptographic Signature
Re: D2 port of Tango
On 2011-12-26 15:54, Jordi Sayol wrote: Al 25/12/11 18:17, En/na Damian Ziemba ha escrit: They got 2 different goals. SiegeLord wants to keep as much of original Tango as possible and make it D2-wish while mt'chrono changes Tango itself, because he thinks something is wrong-designed (or he doesn't get idea properly). tango.net.* for example. That's all, that's why there are 2 branches. Thanks for your comment. Then, if mt'chrono change Tango itself, isn't a good ide to change a bit its name? as Tango2 or whatever, just to be more distinguishable from SiegeLord's branch. And SiegeLord's branch *IS* built on top of druntime. Extra features that Tango runtime had, are inside version blocks, so you may want use them also :) But out of box it works with druntime without any additional steps. I'm sure you're right but, I just say that SiegeLord's branch do not need druntime.a library present on a Linux system to be compiled, and mt'chrono's branch yes. Best regards, I got linker errors on Mac OS X when I did link with druntime. -- /Jacob Carlborg
Re: D2 port of Tango
On Saturday, 24 December 2011 at 22:15:59 UTC, Jordi Sayol wrote:
Al 24/12/11 14:20, En/na mta`chrono ha escrit:
Unlike SiegeLord's branch I've removed tango's runtime and
build on top
of druntime. This step is inevitable in order to make tango
and phobos
work side by side.
SiegeLord's branch do not need druntime lib to be present on
the system when compiling tango-d2, and the resulting libraries
can be used together with phobos.
import std.stdio;
import tango.io.Stdout;
void main()
{
writeln(hello phobos!);
Stdout(hello tango!).newline;
}
Properly compiles and run.
So, is it not a good idea to join forces to advance more
strongly, since pursued the same goal?
Best regards,
They got 2 different goals. SiegeLord wants to keep as much of
original Tango as possible and make it D2-wish while mt'chrono
changes Tango itself, because he thinks something is
wrong-designed (or he doesn't get idea properly). tango.net.* for
example. That's all, that's why there are 2 branches.
And SiegeLord's branch *IS* built on top of druntime. Extra
features that Tango runtime had, are inside version blocks, so
you may want use them also :) But out of box it works with
druntime without any additional steps.
Re: D2 port of Tango
Al 24/12/11 01:39, En/na mta`chrono ha escrit: I'm using dmd 2.058 and `make -f posix.mak` to compile it. Can you please tell me your errors? - mta`chrono $ make -f posix.mak make MODEL=32 BUILD=release --no-print-directory -f posix.mak dmd -c -m32 -I../druntime/import -w -d -m32 -O -release -nofloat -ofgenerated/release/32/tango/util/log/AppendSocket.o tango/util/log/AppendSocket.d tango/net/Address.d(18): Error: module un is in file 'core/sys/posix/sys/un.d' which cannot be read import path[0] = ../druntime/import import path[1] = /usr/include/d/dmd/phobos import path[2] = /usr/include/d/dmd/druntime/import make[1]: *** [generated/release/32/tango/util/log/AppendSocket.o] Error 1 make: *** [release] Error 2 same result with: $ make -f posix.mak MODEL=64 -- Jordi Sayol smime.p7s Description: S/MIME Cryptographic Signature
Re: D2 port of Tango
Hey Jordi, thank you for posting your results!!! :-) It tries to read core.sys.posix.sys.un which is part of druntime. Unlike SiegeLord's branch I've removed tango's runtime and build on top of druntime. This step is inevitable in order to make tango and phobos work side by side. The file that cannot be read on your system is definitivly there. https://github.com/D-Programming-Language/druntime/blob/master/src/core/sys/posix/sys/un.d You just need to checkout druntime, phobos and tango and put them in some kind of following file structure. /usr/include/d/dmd/druntime /usr/include/d/dmd/tango /usr/include/d/dmd/phobos Then compile druntime, phobos and tango. - mta`chrono
Re: D2 port of Tango
Al 24/12/11 14:20, En/na mta`chrono ha escrit: Hey Jordi, thank you for posting your results!!! :-) It tries to read core.sys.posix.sys.un which is part of druntime. Yes, but it is not present on dmd.2.057.zip Unlike SiegeLord's branch I've removed tango's runtime and build on top of druntime. This step is inevitable in order to make tango and phobos work side by side. hmmm, SiegeLord's branch works together with phobos too. The file that cannot be read on your system is definitivly there. https://github.com/D-Programming-Language/druntime/blob/master/src/core/sys/posix/sys/un.d You just need to checkout druntime, phobos and tango and put them in some kind of following file structure. /usr/include/d/dmd/druntime /usr/include/d/dmd/tango /usr/include/d/dmd/phobos Then compile druntime, phobos and tango. After checkout, it properly compiles your branch of tango! many thanks! Here is a link to a deb file containing your tango branch. https://d-packages.googlecode.com/files/libtango-dev_1.99%7E2011.12.23-0_all.deb It includes both 32 and 64-bit libraries, the modules, and the pkg-config configuration file for an easy compiling: $ dmd `pkg-config --cflags --libs tango` myapp.d As it was compiled with dmd 2.058 and there is not deb package for this version yet, this tango deb package has no any dmd dependency (enough just for testing). Now I've many problems generating documentation. $ make doc -f posix.mak dmd -o- -version=TangoDoc -Dfdoc/html/tango/core/Array.html tango/core/Array.d dmd -o- -version=TangoDoc -Dfdoc/html/tango/core/BitArray.html tango/core/BitArray.d dmd -o- -version=TangoDoc -Dfdoc/html/tango/core/ByteSwap.html tango/core/ByteSwap.d dmd -o- -version=TangoDoc -Dfdoc/html/tango/core/Exception.html tango/core/Exception.d dmd -o- -version=TangoDoc -Dfdoc/html/tango/core/RuntimeTraits.html tango/core/RuntimeTraits.d tango/core/RuntimeTraits.d(569): use of typedef is deprecated; use alias instead tango/core/RuntimeTraits.d(569): use of typedef is deprecated; use alias instead make: *** [doc/html/tango/core/RuntimeTraits.html] Error 1 Best regards, -- Jordi Sayol smime.p7s Description: S/MIME Cryptographic Signature
Re: D2 port of Tango
Al 24/12/11 14:20, En/na mta`chrono ha escrit:
Unlike SiegeLord's branch I've removed tango's runtime and build on top
of druntime. This step is inevitable in order to make tango and phobos
work side by side.
SiegeLord's branch do not need druntime lib to be present on the system when
compiling tango-d2, and the resulting libraries can be used together with
phobos.
import std.stdio;
import tango.io.Stdout;
void main()
{
writeln(hello phobos!);
Stdout(hello tango!).newline;
}
Properly compiles and run.
So, is it not a good idea to join forces to advance more strongly, since
pursued the same goal?
Best regards,
--
Jordi Sayol
smime.p7s
Description: S/MIME Cryptographic Signature
Re: D2 port of Tango
Al 18/10/11 06:52, En/na SiegeLord ha escrit: I just wanted to get the word out about a little project me and a few other people been working on for the few past months, in case anyone feels like helping out (or just as an FYI). This project is the D2 port of the Tango framework library. You can read about it here: https://github.com/SiegeLord/Tango-D2 We are currently a little more than half way done in terms of modules fiddled with. Currently there are 181 modules ported out of approximately 343 (give or take 20). Currently only the dmd compiler and Linux platform are supported... but obviously we want to get all the other platforms/compilers as time goes on. I'm guessing at the current rate of porting we'll be done in about half a year. Now, the project is actually two projects in one. The first project is a D2 port proper that tries to keep API semantics the same as the D1 original. I preside over this aspect, and you can see the rough porting guidelines in the repository. This is the 'd2port' branch in my repository. The second project is a more ambitious effort to rewrite some aspects of Tango without preserving semantics or anything. mtachrono presides over this aspect, so you can talk to him about the motivations behind it. This is the 'master' branch in my repository. That's all. Cheers. -SiegeLord Hello, I've created two tango-d2 deb packages for debian like systems. https://d-packages.googlecode.com/files/libtango-dev_1.99%7E2011.12.17-0_all.deb https://d-packages.googlecode.com/files/libtango-doc_1.99%7E2011.12.17-0_all.deb The first one includes the library (both, 32 and 64 bit, so it is not arch dependent), the source modules, and the pkg-config configuration file for an easy compilation: $ dmd `pkg-config --cflags --libs tango` myapp.d It depends on dmd 2.057 and newer. The second one includes the html documentation generated with CandyDoc, and a shortcut to it at the system menu. Also it includes the examples. Best regards, -- Jordi Sayol smime.p7s Description: S/MIME Cryptographic Signature
Re: D2 port of Tango
Hey, that's cool. How did you create it? I'd like to create a .deb for my tango branch, too. https://github.com/mtachrono/tango - mta`chrono
Re: D2 port of Tango
Al 23/12/11 21:38, En/na mta`chrono ha escrit: Hey, that's cool. How did you create it? I'd like to create a .deb for my tango branch, too. https://github.com/mtachrono/tango - mta`chrono I manually created them with debhelper. I'm getting errors compiling your branch with dmd 2.057 Regards, -- Jordi Sayol smime.p7s Description: S/MIME Cryptographic Signature
Re: D2 port of Tango
I'm using dmd 2.058 and `make -f posix.mak` to compile it. Can you please tell me your errors? - mta`chrono
Re: D2 port of Tango
No he said he was surprised Tango reallocated without him knowing about it. If this is actually documented behavior, then that could be ok. I think this behavoir should be changed in tango d2. if you pass a buffer then it should be used or not (if it's not big enough for any reason). but no hidden memory allocation.
Re: D2 port of Tango
You will never satisfy both worlds (simplicity vs flexibility). Both Phobos and Tango have their place in the D community. It is unfortunate many people in the D community fails to see it. Also, it is unfortunate (but very easy to explain) that Tango project started as a complete implementation of the run-time library. We debate this for years on irc:// irc.freenode.org/d and it never ends. Tango d2 should give up it's own runtime and consequently use druntime, even though this is an immense change that nearly affects everything to change. Nobody will be able to maintain two runtime's at the same time. You'll have to be aware of so many stuff. Even if you provide a method that the user can choose between tango's runtime and druntime, you will have to mess around with duplicate declarations etc. In one module you're using tango's struct sockaddr declaration and in the other you'll try to pass it to a functions that requires druntime's struct sockaddr. the compiler will complain that you cannot pass sockaddr where sockaddr is required. So please give up tango's runtime and make a consequent use of druntime. If someone want's to customize the behavoir of the gc for example than he should use druntime's possibilities to change it.
Re: D2 port of Tango
On 2011-11-06 12:43, mta`chrono wrote: You will never satisfy both worlds (simplicity vs flexibility). Both Phobos and Tango have their place in the D community. It is unfortunate many people in the D community fails to see it. Also, it is unfortunate (but very easy to explain) that Tango project started as a complete implementation of the run-time library. We debate this for years on irc:// irc.freenode.org/d and it never ends. Tango d2 should give up it's own runtime and consequently use druntime, even though this is an immense change that nearly affects everything to change. Nobody will be able to maintain two runtime's at the same time. You'll have to be aware of so many stuff. Even if you provide a method that the user can choose between tango's runtime and druntime, you will have to mess around with duplicate declarations etc. In one module you're using tango's struct sockaddr declaration and in the other you'll try to pass it to a functions that requires druntime's struct sockaddr. the compiler will complain that you cannot pass sockaddr where sockaddr is required. So please give up tango's runtime and make a consequent use of druntime. If someone want's to customize the behavoir of the gc for example than he should use druntime's possibilities to change it. As far as I know, the D2 port of Tango uses druntime. -- /Jacob Carlborg
Re: D2 port of Tango
On 2011-11-04 20:11, Andrej Mitrovic wrote: On 11/4/11, Jacob Carlborgd...@me.com wrote: Since most functions in Phobos don't accept a buffer parameter it would always need to allocate. How is that better? No he said he was surprised Tango reallocated without him knowing about it. If this is actually documented behavior, then that could be ok. Many functions in Tango mention in the documentation if it allocates. If you know the concept of how buffers are used then you know it could allocate. -- /Jacob Carlborg
Re: D2 port of Tango
== Quote from Damian Ziemba (nazr...@driv.pl)'s article On Tue, 18 Oct 2011 20:27:40 +0300, Denis Shelomovskij wrote: +1 to Caligo. I agree that Tango is a good library (and was the best one for D1) but, IMHO, porting it to D2 is a bad idea. I'm the one who has a big D1+Tango project and I'd better rewrite it with D2+Phobos, because: 0. I don't want to have a two standard libraries problem with D2 (which one to select?). You don't have to. You can use Tango and Phobos together. You can also use some selected modules :) For example in one of my projects I use cipher and digest modules from Tango and rest is Phobos. 1. Phobos has a better design (Tango is too complicated in some places, has a lot of things I (and a regular programmer IMHO) don't use, and has bad design decisions sometimes - both internal and user API) I totally disagree :) Show me example of such bad decision. 2. Phobos has less _critical bugs_ because of better code control (e.g. Tango has memory corruption bug for a very long time in Vector container (#2064)). Tickets and Patches are always welcome :) 3. There is no Andrei Alexandrescu clone to generate that perfect ideas for Tango. This one made me rotfl in real :D Haha. Tango had some best developers in D community including h3r3tic, Kris, Fawzi, Sean and so on, so on :) I don't like Phobos design, which takes all libs in the same path looking so urgly, but tango seperate libs in different path according to its function using, so I like tango's design.
Re: D2 port of Tango
On Sat, 05 Nov 2011 14:50:09 +, zsxxsz wrote: I don't like Phobos design, which takes all libs in the same path looking so urgly, but tango seperate libs in different path according to its function using, so I like tango's design. You will never satisfy both worlds (simplicity vs flexibility). Both Phobos and Tango have their place in the D community. It is unfortunate many people in the D community fails to see it. Also, it is unfortunate (but very easy to explain) that Tango project started as a complete implementation of the run-time library. We debate this for years on irc:// irc.freenode.org/d and it never ends. I belong to the group that like the way Phobos does things, but unlike some people I think Tango is a brilliant, high-level library. I wish we had druntime when Tango project started, but nothing is lost, I believe Tango2 project will fit nicely on top of druntime, and live long and prosperous life. The reason why I also like Tango (even though I never used it in anything serious) is that it reminds me a lot of Java API which is robust, reach and intuitive. Tango IO is very similar to Java NIO...
Re: D2 port of Tango
On 11/05/2011 10:56 AM, Dejan Lekic wrote: On Sat, 05 Nov 2011 14:50:09 +, zsxxsz wrote: I don't like Phobos design, which takes all libs in the same path looking so urgly, but tango seperate libs in different path according to its function using, so I like tango's design. You will never satisfy both worlds (simplicity vs flexibility). Both Phobos and Tango have their place in the D community. It is unfortunate many people in the D community fails to see it. Also, it is unfortunate (but very easy to explain) that Tango project started as a complete implementation of the run-time library. We debate this for years on irc:// irc.freenode.org/d and it never ends. I belong to the group that like the way Phobos does things, but unlike some people I think Tango is a brilliant, high-level library. I wish we had druntime when Tango project started, but nothing is lost, I believe Tango2 project will fit nicely on top of druntime, and live long and prosperous life. The reason why I also like Tango (even though I never used it in anything serious) is that it reminds me a lot of Java API which is robust, reach and intuitive. Tango IO is very similar to Java NIO... If Tango is compatible with Phobos, then I don't mind it. I'm not real tight on either disk space or RAM. The prior version, however, required that Phobos be removed to install, so you could either use Tango libraries *OR* Phobos libraries. And Tango was often broken, where Phobos usually worked. This divided the community, and gifted us with REAMS of non-usable projects. So I'm just a bit skittish when I hear the name Tango these days. (Perhaps it worked better on MSWind platforms. But it still divided a community that was already smaller than optimal.)
Re: D2 port of Tango
On 2011-11-03 16:01, Andrej Mitrovic wrote: On 11/3/11, Denis Shelomovskijverylonglogin@gmail.com wrote: * the worst case, if you provide a large enough buffer, you are (I was) completely sure Tango will use it (you want to do a manual memory management by some reason), *but* it will reallocate a new one from GC if it just don't like yours That sounds really weird. So it takes your array buffer as a ref argument and resizes it / reallocates it if it's not big enough? I've never used Tango so I don't quite understand how it works. If I pass a static array or its slice of it, it can't do much except maybe throw an exception if it's not big enough. Hidden memory allocations are superbad! Since most functions in Phobos don't accept a buffer parameter it would always need to allocate. How is that better? Or are you meaning that then you know it will always allocate. Don't know what happens if a static array is not big enough. -- /Jacob Carlborg
Re: D2 port of Tango
On 11/4/11, Jacob Carlborg d...@me.com wrote: Since most functions in Phobos don't accept a buffer parameter it would always need to allocate. How is that better? No he said he was surprised Tango reallocated without him knowing about it. If this is actually documented behavior, then that could be ok.
Re: D2 port of Tango
03.11.2011 1:29, Damian Ziemba пишет: 1. Phobos has a better design (Tango is too complicated in some places, has a lot of things I (and a regular programmer IMHO) don't use, and has bad design decisions sometimes - both internal and user API) I totally disagree:) Show me example of such bad decision. Tango often asks you a buffer (e.g. at tango.text.Unicode, tango.text.convert.Utf) that is not needed in a language with GC. But it isn't a main problem. Let's consider the cases: * if you don't provide a buffer it will manually allocate an array instead of using an Appender and than reallocate it etc. * the worst case, if you provide a large enough buffer, you are (I was) completely sure Tango will use it (you whant to do a manual memory management by some reason), *but* it will reallocate a new one from GC if it just don't like yours (if yourBuffer.length - minimalNeededLength tangoSacredAdditionLength, and addition length it often nonzero, so Tango will not like your exactly enough buffer).
Re: D2 port of Tango
On 11/3/11, Denis Shelomovskij verylonglogin@gmail.com wrote: * the worst case, if you provide a large enough buffer, you are (I was) completely sure Tango will use it (you want to do a manual memory management by some reason), *but* it will reallocate a new one from GC if it just don't like yours That sounds really weird. So it takes your array buffer as a ref argument and resizes it / reallocates it if it's not big enough? I've never used Tango so I don't quite understand how it works. If I pass a static array or its slice of it, it can't do much except maybe throw an exception if it's not big enough. Hidden memory allocations are superbad!
Re: D2 port of Tango
On 11/03/2011 02:55 PM, Trass3r wrote: Am 03.11.2011, 00:46 Uhr, schrieb mta`chrono chr...@mta-international.net: Yesterday I managed to compile all ported modules on Windows. So it looks like Tango for D2 should work on Linux and Windows right now. SiegeLord has created a master branch. I've deleted tango.stdc and parts of tango.sys in my fork. At first, a thousands of errors arose but I could fix them by using druntime instead. We need to do similar for windows. So how far along is this project actually? Yes, Tango for D2 should make use of druntime and deimos. Deimos?? Isn't that dead? Probably he meant this: https://github.com/D-Programming-Language/deimos What other project were you referring to?
Re: D2 port of Tango
Timon Gehr Wrote: Yes, Tango for D2 should make use of druntime and deimos. Deimos?? Isn't that dead? Probably he meant this: https://github.com/D-Programming-Language/deimos What other project were you referring to? http://www.dsource.org/projects/deimos of course ;)
Re: D2 port of Tango
On Nov 3, 2011, at 9:06 AM, Timon Gehr wrote: On 11/03/2011 02:55 PM, Trass3r wrote: Yes, Tango for D2 should make use of druntime and deimos. Deimos?? Isn't that dead? Probably he meant this: https://github.com/D-Programming-Language/deimos What other project were you referring to? There's an old dead project on source named deimos. As a bit of trivia, Tango would probably have been named deimos if dsource/deimos hadn't existed.
Re: D2 port of Tango
Yesterday I managed to compile all ported modules on Windows. So it looks like Tango for D2 should work on Linux and Windows right now. Lots of people are missing the point of whole project. Tango for D2 uses Druntime so it is quite normal to use Phobos and Tango together :) Giving users a choice is great thing in my opinion. Not everyone likes the Phobos philosophy or its design decisions. Somebody said that Tango hasn't got Andrei on board... Well, with all respect to Andrei as he is great developer but he is not the only one who knows how the things should be done. The whole tango.net module is example of great Design :) Lets say that Phobos has Andrei on board, and Tango has got Kris on board ;) So, resuming, you can use Tango(D2) with Phobos, you do not have to sacrifice neither library. Lots of people sticks with D1 because of Tango... This maybe great step for those folks to go with flow, and D2 ;)
Re: D2 port of Tango
On Tue, 18 Oct 2011 20:27:40 +0300, Denis Shelomovskij wrote: +1 to Caligo. I agree that Tango is a good library (and was the best one for D1) but, IMHO, porting it to D2 is a bad idea. I'm the one who has a big D1+Tango project and I'd better rewrite it with D2+Phobos, because: 0. I don't want to have a two standard libraries problem with D2 (which one to select?). You don't have to. You can use Tango and Phobos together. You can also use some selected modules :) For example in one of my projects I use cipher and digest modules from Tango and rest is Phobos. 1. Phobos has a better design (Tango is too complicated in some places, has a lot of things I (and a regular programmer IMHO) don't use, and has bad design decisions sometimes - both internal and user API) I totally disagree :) Show me example of such bad decision. 2. Phobos has less _critical bugs_ because of better code control (e.g. Tango has memory corruption bug for a very long time in Vector container (#2064)). Tickets and Patches are always welcome :) 3. There is no Andrei Alexandrescu clone to generate that perfect ideas for Tango. This one made me rotfl in real :D Haha. Tango had some best developers in D community including h3r3tic, Kris, Fawzi, Sean and so on, so on :)
Re: D2 port of Tango
Yesterday I managed to compile all ported modules on Windows. So it looks like Tango for D2 should work on Linux and Windows right now. SiegeLord has created a master branch. I've deleted tango.stdc and parts of tango.sys in my fork. At first, a thousands of errors arose but I could fix them by using druntime instead. We need to do similar for windows. Lots of people are missing the point of whole project. Tango for D2 uses Druntime so it is quite normal to use Phobos and Tango together :) Yes, Tango for D2 should make use of druntime and deimos. I understand people are afraid that developing tango will split the community like it already happend in the past. But since tango and phobos use the same core, furthur tango developers will even contribute to druntime and deimos. Giving users a choice is great thing in my opinion. Not everyone likes the Phobos philosophy or its design decisions. Yes, though there is some lack of tangos design. It's too complex. IConduit, Conduit, Device, InputStream, OutputStream, InputFilter, OutputFilter... I don't understand why they haven't merged Conduit and Device?!? Somebody said that Tango hasn't got Andrei on board... Well, with all respect to Andrei as he is great developer but he is not the only one who knows how the things should be done. The whole tango.net module is example of great Design :) Lets say that Phobos has Andrei on board, and Tango has got Kris on board ;) Andrei on board means Andrei!T on board ;-). So, resuming, you can use Tango(D2) with Phobos, you do not have to sacrifice neither library. Lots of people sticks with D1 because of Tango... This maybe great step for those folks to go with flow, and D2 ;)
Re: D2 port of Tango
the reason I love tango is it's design. tango's approach is very c++
like and since I'm a Qt-Fan, I would flavour a d2 version like this:
tango.io.Device
+
+++--+
vv| |
tango.net.Socket tango.io.File | |
++| |
||| v
+---++ | tango.io.ThreadPipe
v |v ||
tango.net.TcpSocket | tango.net.UdpSocket|
+ | ||
| v |v
| tango.net.LocalSocket | tango.io.BitBucket
v |
tango.net.SslSocket v
tango.io.Console
tango should use druntime and work with phobos side by side. this one
works fine.
import std.stdio;
import tango.io.Stdout;
void main()
{
writeln(hello phobos!);
Stdout(hello tango!).newline;
}
Re: D2 port of Tango
On 2011-10-21 07:00, Kagamin wrote: Jacob Carlborg Wrote: Even if one would use Phobos, Tango still have things to offer over Phobos. For example, support for OpenSSL, cryptographic, a net library that doesn't depend on external libraries and a better XML library. Hmm... does phobos offer something over Tango? No, not really. Well, ZIP support that doesn't depend on external libraries and some array operations, e.g. map, filter, reduce and so on. Although I see that Tango just got map and filter. -- /Jacob Carlborg
Re: D2 port of Tango
On 2011-10-20 20:16, SiegeLord wrote: Eric Poggel (JoeCoder) Wrote: That's what I do now with Tango 1. But if every library I used required separate installation steps (instead of just pitting it in the repository), there would be about a dozen to install. I want to keep things as simple as possible for my users. My goal is to make it as easy as: 1. Install dmd 2. Checkout Yage from Hg 3. Run the build script Sorry, I don't mean to sound so demanding. I greatly appreciate your work in porting tango to D2. No offense taken. What you're suggesting seems to me a little outside of the scope of Tango specifically. You'd have the same issue with any other 3rd party library in D and in many other languages (e.g. C and C++). This sort of thing is probably best solved by some cpan/ruby gem type of thing that was discussed earlier on the mailing lists (I don't follow them anymore so I've no idea how that turned out). I'm working on that. https://github.com/jacob-carlborg/orbit/wiki/Orbit-Package-Manager-for-D https://github.com/jacob-carlborg/orbit -- /Jacob Carlborg
Re: D2 port of Tango
On 10/20/2011 10:00 PM, Kagamin wrote: Jacob Carlborg Wrote: Even if one would use Phobos, Tango still have things to offer over Phobos. For example, support for OpenSSL, cryptographic, a net library that doesn't depend on external libraries and a better XML library. Hmm... does Phobos offer something over Tango? Even *IF* Phobos didn't offer anything else over Tango, it comes standardly installed with D. Unless Tango offers the EXACT same interface, that's enough to cause me to prefer Phobos over Tango. And being feature compatible is quite difficult even when that's your goal. So it would be extremely preferable if Tango could be installed along side of Phobos without interfering with it. If it can't be, it will divide the development community. Again. With foreseeable effects in an already small community.
Re: D2 port of Tango
On 10/18/2011 5:07 PM, SiegeLord wrote: to use it you'd install the whole thing somewhere on your computer. That's what I do now with Tango 1. But if every library I used required separate installation steps (instead of just pitting it in the repository), there would be about a dozen to install. I want to keep things as simple as possible for my users. My goal is to make it as easy as: 1. Install dmd 2. Checkout Yage from Hg 3. Run the build script
Re: D2 port of Tango
On 10/20/2011 12:38 PM, Eric Poggel (JoeCoder) wrote: On 10/18/2011 5:07 PM, SiegeLord wrote: to use it you'd install the whole thing somewhere on your computer. That's what I do now with Tango 1. But if every library I used required separate installation steps (instead of just pitting it in the repository), there would be about a dozen to install. I want to keep things as simple as possible for my users. My goal is to make it as easy as: 1. Install dmd 2. Checkout Yage from Hg 3. Run the build script Sorry, I don't mean to sound so demanding. I greatly appreciate your work in porting tango to D2.
Re: D2 port of Tango
Eric Poggel (JoeCoder) Wrote: That's what I do now with Tango 1. But if every library I used required separate installation steps (instead of just pitting it in the repository), there would be about a dozen to install. I want to keep things as simple as possible for my users. My goal is to make it as easy as: 1. Install dmd 2. Checkout Yage from Hg 3. Run the build script Sorry, I don't mean to sound so demanding. I greatly appreciate your work in porting tango to D2. No offense taken. What you're suggesting seems to me a little outside of the scope of Tango specifically. You'd have the same issue with any other 3rd party library in D and in many other languages (e.g. C and C++). This sort of thing is probably best solved by some cpan/ruby gem type of thing that was discussed earlier on the mailing lists (I don't follow them anymore so I've no idea how that turned out). Now, in principle Tango could get special treatment that you suggest... but I personally would rather have a framework for all (registered) 3rd party libraries. Also... in principle Tango might one day get a package in some repository (bioinformatics suggested that he would take care of it for Fedora once the port was complete) so at least it won't be as big of a deal there. -SiegeLord
Re: D2 port of Tango
Great stuff!
Re: D2 port of Tango
I think that having tango for D2 could be useful, but I would be quite disappointed if Tango would still not get along with phobos. I understand that druntime might be quite connected to phobos releases, still there should be less reasons this time to fork also the runtime this time. That was always a pita IMHO, and I am a happy D1/tango user. Fawzi On Oct 19, 2011, at 11:12 PM, Andrej Mitrovic wrote: On 10/19/11, Nick Sabalausky a@a.a wrote: zsxxsz zsx...@63.net wrote in message news:j7mmkr$1fm0$1...@digitalmars.com... I love Tango, because it's like using JAVA to program with Tango, and using C++ to program with Phobos. Java is much more easy to program. Heh. The Java-ness of it is actually the one thing about Tango that I don't really like. 'Course, I'm a big Java-hater anyway, YMMV... Oh what, you don't like getterAbstractFactoriesBuilderFactorySingletonObjectListener?
Re: D2 port of Tango
Jacob Carlborg Wrote: Even if one would use Phobos, Tango still have things to offer over Phobos. For example, support for OpenSSL, cryptographic, a net library that doesn't depend on external libraries and a better XML library. Hmm... does phobos offer something over Tango?
Re: D2 port of Tango
On 2011-10-18 20:09, Jonathan M Davis wrote: On Tuesday, October 18, 2011 10:27 Denis Shelomovskij wrote: 18.10.2011 8:00, Caligo пишет: On Mon, Oct 17, 2011 at 11:52 PM, SiegeLordn...@none.com mailto:n...@none.com wrote: I just wanted to get the word out about a little project me and a few other people been working on for the few past months, in case anyone feels like helping out (or just as an FYI). This project is the D2 port of the Tango framework library. You can read about it here: https://github.com/haskelSiegeLord/Tango-D2 https://github.com/SiegeLord/Tango-D2 We are currently a little more than half way done in terms of modules fiddled with. Currently there are 181 modules ported out of approximately 343 (give or take 20). Currently only the dmd compiler and Linux platform are supported... but obviously we want to get all the other platforms/compilers as time goes on. I'm guessing at the current rate of porting we'll be done in about half a year. Now, the project is actually two projects in one. The first project is a D2 port proper that tries to keep API semantics the same as the D1 original. I preside over this aspect, and you can see the rough porting guidelines in the repository. This is the 'd2port' branch in my repository. The second project is a more ambitious effort to rewrite some aspects of Tango without preserving semantics or anything. mtachrono presides over this aspect, so you can talk to him about the motivations behind it. This is the 'master' branch in my repository. That's all. Cheers. -SiegeLord Why? What's the point? Why not work on Phobos instead? +1 to Caligo. I agree that Tango is a good library (and was the best one for D1) but, IMHO, porting it to D2 is a bad idea. I'm the one who has a big D1+Tango project and I'd better rewrite it with D2+Phobos, because: 0. I don't want to have a two standard libraries problem with D2 (which one to select?). 1. Phobos has a better design (Tango is too complicated in some places, has a lot of things I (and a regular programmer IMHO) don't use, and has bad design decisions sometimes - both internal and user API) 2. Phobos has less _critical bugs_ because of better code control (e.g. Tango has memory corruption bug for a very long time in Vector container (#2064)). 3. There is no Andrei Alexandrescu clone to generate that perfect ideas for Tango. While I would much rather see effort being put into improving Phobos than Tango, I think that it's a bit rude to claim that the Tango folks should just throw away all of their Tango work and move all of their projects over to Phobos. Wanting to be able to easily port D1 programs to D2 is a completely valid thing to want to do, and while I think that new projects should use Phobos since it's the standard library, there's nothing wrong with using a different library if you want to. If SiegeLord and others want to spend time porting Tango to D2, it's their right to be able to do so. Ostracizing Tango and its users is just going to make the D2 community poorer. And thanks to druntime, it's now perfectly possible to mix Phobos and Tango code if you want to (though the differences in design will likely make that not always work as well as might be nice), so the situation is not the same as it was for D1 when Phobos sucked, and it and Tango didn't work together. - Jonathan M Davis Even if one would use Phobos, Tango still have things to offer over Phobos. For example, support for OpenSSL, cryptographic, a net library that doesn't depend on external libraries and a better XML library. -- /Jacob Carlborg
Re: D2 port of Tango
I love Tango, because it's like using JAVA to program with Tango, and using C++ to program with Phobos. Java is much more easy to program.
Re: D2 port of Tango
SiegeLord n...@none.com wrote in message news:j7kpr8$l58$1...@digitalmars.com... Then, you can compile the whole thing into a library OR use a tool like xfbuild (maybe rdmd too, never had luck with that one) to compile only the modules that your program imports. I've had somewhat opposite experience. I was never able to get xfbuild to work with D2, but I've been using rdmd successfully for awhile. That said, there *were* some major bugs in the rdmd's from before 2.055/1.070 that caused problems on non-trivial projects. But those issues are now fixed, so you may want to try it again now.
Re: D2 port of Tango
Trass3r u...@known.com wrote in message news:op.v3jlvlcj3ncmek@enigma... Why? What's the point? Why not work on Phobos instead? Well D1 projects could be ported to D2 much more easily, e.g. Yage. I ported a fair amout of stuff directly from D1/Tango to D2/Phobos about a year and a half ago, and it actually went a lot more smoothly than I had expected. Of course, Tango on D2 would make the process even easier still.
Re: D2 port of Tango
zsxxsz zsx...@63.net wrote in message news:j7mmkr$1fm0$1...@digitalmars.com... I love Tango, because it's like using JAVA to program with Tango, and using C++ to program with Phobos. Java is much more easy to program. Heh. The Java-ness of it is actually the one thing about Tango that I don't really like. 'Course, I'm a big Java-hater anyway, YMMV...
Re: D2 port of Tango
On 10/19/11, Nick Sabalausky a@a.a wrote: zsxxsz zsx...@63.net wrote in message news:j7mmkr$1fm0$1...@digitalmars.com... I love Tango, because it's like using JAVA to program with Tango, and using C++ to program with Phobos. Java is much more easy to program. Heh. The Java-ness of it is actually the one thing about Tango that I don't really like. 'Course, I'm a big Java-hater anyway, YMMV... Oh what, you don't like getterAbstractFactoriesBuilderFactorySingletonObjectListener?
Re: D2 port of Tango
On 2011-10-18 06:52, SiegeLord wrote: I just wanted to get the word out about a little project me and a few other people been working on for the few past months, in case anyone feels like helping out (or just as an FYI). This project is the D2 port of the Tango framework library. You can read about it here: https://github.com/SiegeLord/Tango-D2 We are currently a little more than half way done in terms of modules fiddled with. Currently there are 181 modules ported out of approximately 343 (give or take 20). Currently only the dmd compiler and Linux platform are supported... but obviously we want to get all the other platforms/compilers as time goes on. I'm guessing at the current rate of porting we'll be done in about half a year. Now, the project is actually two projects in one. The first project is a D2 port proper that tries to keep API semantics the same as the D1 original. I preside over this aspect, and you can see the rough porting guidelines in the repository. This is the 'd2port' branch in my repository. The second project is a more ambitious effort to rewrite some aspects of Tango without preserving semantics or anything. mtachrono presides over this aspect, so you can talk to him about the motivations behind it. This is the 'master' branch in my repository. That's all. Cheers. -SiegeLord This is great, keep up to good work. -- /Jacob Carlborg
Re: D2 port of Tango
On 2011-10-18 06:52, SiegeLord wrote: I just wanted to get the word out about a little project me and a few other people been working on for the few past months, in case anyone feels like helping out (or just as an FYI). This project is the D2 port of the Tango framework library. You can read about it here: https://github.com/SiegeLord/Tango-D2 We are currently a little more than half way done in terms of modules fiddled with. Currently there are 181 modules ported out of approximately 343 (give or take 20). Currently only the dmd compiler and Linux platform are supported... but obviously we want to get all the other platforms/compilers as time goes on. I'm guessing at the current rate of porting we'll be done in about half a year. Now, the project is actually two projects in one. The first project is a D2 port proper that tries to keep API semantics the same as the D1 original. I preside over this aspect, and you can see the rough porting guidelines in the repository. This is the 'd2port' branch in my repository. Does this use druntime? The second project is a more ambitious effort to rewrite some aspects of Tango without preserving semantics or anything. mtachrono presides over this aspect, so you can talk to him about the motivations behind it. This is the 'master' branch in my repository. Do you have any examples of this, what's changed? That's all. Cheers. -SiegeLord -- /Jacob Carlborg
Re: D2 port of Tango
Good job. The first project is a D2 port proper that tries to keep API semantics This is the 'd2port' branch in my repository. The second project is a more ambitious effort to rewrite some aspects This is the 'master' branch in my repository. Why isn't it the other way around?
Re: D2 port of Tango
Why? What's the point? Why not work on Phobos instead? Well D1 projects could be ported to D2 much more easily, e.g. Yage.
Re: D2 port of Tango
Greate news. I wait for it for a long time.
Re: D2 port of Tango
Caligo Wrote: Why? What's the point? Why not work on Phobos instead? Aside from the obvious philosophical differences, which I am NOT going to get into, porting D1 projects is an important reason. -SiegeLord
Re: D2 port of Tango
Jacob Carlborg Wrote: Does this use druntime? Yes, although a Tango specific runtime (compatible with druntime) will probably be an option some day too. Still, right now you can safely use (modulo my imperfect testing) Phobos and Tango modules together in a single program. Do you have any examples of this, what's changed? The biggest difference right now is the near-complete rewriting of the tango.net package. You'd have to get a hold of mtachrono to see what roadmap he has. -SiegeLord
Re: D2 port of Tango
Trass3r Wrote: Why isn't it the other way around? Just a historical oddity. -SiegeLord
Re: D2 port of Tango
18.10.2011 8:00, Caligo пишет: On Mon, Oct 17, 2011 at 11:52 PM, SiegeLord n...@none.com mailto:n...@none.com wrote: I just wanted to get the word out about a little project me and a few other people been working on for the few past months, in case anyone feels like helping out (or just as an FYI). This project is the D2 port of the Tango framework library. You can read about it here: https://github.com/haskelSiegeLord/Tango-D2 https://github.com/SiegeLord/Tango-D2 We are currently a little more than half way done in terms of modules fiddled with. Currently there are 181 modules ported out of approximately 343 (give or take 20). Currently only the dmd compiler and Linux platform are supported... but obviously we want to get all the other platforms/compilers as time goes on. I'm guessing at the current rate of porting we'll be done in about half a year. Now, the project is actually two projects in one. The first project is a D2 port proper that tries to keep API semantics the same as the D1 original. I preside over this aspect, and you can see the rough porting guidelines in the repository. This is the 'd2port' branch in my repository. The second project is a more ambitious effort to rewrite some aspects of Tango without preserving semantics or anything. mtachrono presides over this aspect, so you can talk to him about the motivations behind it. This is the 'master' branch in my repository. That's all. Cheers. -SiegeLord Why? What's the point? Why not work on Phobos instead? +1 to Caligo. I agree that Tango is a good library (and was the best one for D1) but, IMHO, porting it to D2 is a bad idea. I'm the one who has a big D1+Tango project and I'd better rewrite it with D2+Phobos, because: 0. I don't want to have a two standard libraries problem with D2 (which one to select?). 1. Phobos has a better design (Tango is too complicated in some places, has a lot of things I (and a regular programmer IMHO) don't use, and has bad design decisions sometimes - both internal and user API) 2. Phobos has less _critical bugs_ because of better code control (e.g. Tango has memory corruption bug for a very long time in Vector container (#2064)). 3. There is no Andrei Alexandrescu clone to generate that perfect ideas for Tango.
Re: D2 port of Tango
On 10/18/2011 12:52 AM, SiegeLord wrote: I just wanted to get the word out about a little project me and a few other people been working on for the few past months, in case anyone feels like helping out (or just as an FYI). This project is the D2 port of the Tango framework library. You can read about it here: https://github.com/SiegeLord/Tango-D2 We are currently a little more than half way done in terms of modules fiddled with. Currently there are 181 modules ported out of approximately 343 (give or take 20). Currently only the dmd compiler and Linux platform are supported... but obviously we want to get all the other platforms/compilers as time goes on. I'm guessing at the current rate of porting we'll be done in about half a year. Now, the project is actually two projects in one. The first project is a D2 port proper that tries to keep API semantics the same as the D1 original. I preside over this aspect, and you can see the rough porting guidelines in the repository. This is the 'd2port' branch in my repository. The second project is a more ambitious effort to rewrite some aspects of Tango without preserving semantics or anything. mtachrono presides over this aspect, so you can talk to him about the motivations behind it. This is the 'master' branch in my repository. That's all. Cheers. -SiegeLord I already mentioned this deeper down in the thread, but what are the chances of being able to use tango as an add-on for phobos2? Something from which I could pull in only the tango modules I need and use phobos for the rest?
Re: D2 port of Tango
On 10/18/2011 6:24 AM, Trass3r wrote: Why? What's the point? Why not work on Phobos instead? Well D1 projects could be ported to D2 much more easily, e.g. Yage. True, but I had hoped to port Yage to phobos2 anyway. Lack of xml support in phobos is the biggest reason I haven't started doing this already. Time being another reason. If Tango was a library of add-in modules of which I could include only what I need, I would be very likely to keep using it. I think tango could become quite popular again with an approach like this. But it may need to depend on some phobos modules and conventions for good integration.
Re: D2 port of Tango
I already mentioned this deeper down in the thread, but what are the chances of being able to use tango as an add-on for phobos2? Something from which I could pull in only the tango modules I need and use phobos for the rest? He already answered that: SiegeLord Wrote: Does this use druntime? Yes, although a Tango specific runtime (compatible with druntime) will probably be an option some day too. Still, right now you can safely use (modulo my imperfect testing) Phobos and Tango modules together in a single program.
Re: D2 port of Tango
On 10/18/2011 12:45 PM, Trass3r wrote: I already mentioned this deeper down in the thread, but what are the chances of being able to use tango as an add-on for phobos2? Something from which I could pull in only the tango modules I need and use phobos for the rest? He already answered that: SiegeLord Wrote: Does this use druntime? Yes, although a Tango specific runtime (compatible with druntime) will probably be an option some day too. Still, right now you can safely use (modulo my imperfect testing) Phobos and Tango modules together in a single program. Not quite. I was wondering if it can be done with ONLY bringing in what I need, as apposed to most or all of tango.
Re: D2 port of Tango
On Tuesday, October 18, 2011 10:27 Denis Shelomovskij wrote: 18.10.2011 8:00, Caligo пишет: On Mon, Oct 17, 2011 at 11:52 PM, SiegeLord n...@none.com mailto:n...@none.com wrote: I just wanted to get the word out about a little project me and a few other people been working on for the few past months, in case anyone feels like helping out (or just as an FYI). This project is the D2 port of the Tango framework library. You can read about it here: https://github.com/haskelSiegeLord/Tango-D2 https://github.com/SiegeLord/Tango-D2 We are currently a little more than half way done in terms of modules fiddled with. Currently there are 181 modules ported out of approximately 343 (give or take 20). Currently only the dmd compiler and Linux platform are supported... but obviously we want to get all the other platforms/compilers as time goes on. I'm guessing at the current rate of porting we'll be done in about half a year. Now, the project is actually two projects in one. The first project is a D2 port proper that tries to keep API semantics the same as the D1 original. I preside over this aspect, and you can see the rough porting guidelines in the repository. This is the 'd2port' branch in my repository. The second project is a more ambitious effort to rewrite some aspects of Tango without preserving semantics or anything. mtachrono presides over this aspect, so you can talk to him about the motivations behind it. This is the 'master' branch in my repository. That's all. Cheers. -SiegeLord Why? What's the point? Why not work on Phobos instead? +1 to Caligo. I agree that Tango is a good library (and was the best one for D1) but, IMHO, porting it to D2 is a bad idea. I'm the one who has a big D1+Tango project and I'd better rewrite it with D2+Phobos, because: 0. I don't want to have a two standard libraries problem with D2 (which one to select?). 1. Phobos has a better design (Tango is too complicated in some places, has a lot of things I (and a regular programmer IMHO) don't use, and has bad design decisions sometimes - both internal and user API) 2. Phobos has less _critical bugs_ because of better code control (e.g. Tango has memory corruption bug for a very long time in Vector container (#2064)). 3. There is no Andrei Alexandrescu clone to generate that perfect ideas for Tango. While I would much rather see effort being put into improving Phobos than Tango, I think that it's a bit rude to claim that the Tango folks should just throw away all of their Tango work and move all of their projects over to Phobos. Wanting to be able to easily port D1 programs to D2 is a completely valid thing to want to do, and while I think that new projects should use Phobos since it's the standard library, there's nothing wrong with using a different library if you want to. If SiegeLord and others want to spend time porting Tango to D2, it's their right to be able to do so. Ostracizing Tango and its users is just going to make the D2 community poorer. And thanks to druntime, it's now perfectly possible to mix Phobos and Tango code if you want to (though the differences in design will likely make that not always work as well as might be nice), so the situation is not the same as it was for D1 when Phobos sucked, and it and Tango didn't work together. - Jonathan M Davis
Re: D2 port of Tango
Denis Shelomovskij Wrote: +1 to Caligo. I agree that Tango is a good library (and was the best one for D1) but, IMHO, porting it to D2 is a bad idea. I'm the one who has a big D1+Tango project and I'd better rewrite it with D2+Phobos, because: 0. I don't want to have a two standard libraries problem with D2 (which one to select?). 1. Phobos has a better design (Tango is too complicated in some places, has a lot of things I (and a regular programmer IMHO) don't use, and has bad design decisions sometimes - both internal and user API) 2. Phobos has less _critical bugs_ because of better code control (e.g. Tango has memory corruption bug for a very long time in Vector container (#2064)). 3. There is no Andrei Alexandrescu clone to generate that perfect ideas for Tango. 0. Phobos is still the standard library for D2. Tango becomes a 3rd party library you can use alongside Phobos. Think using libGTK along side glibc. 1, 3. Subjective. I think the opposite and more importantly I believe in choice. 2. Fixed 3 months ago. -SiegeLord
Re: D2 port of Tango
Eric Poggel (JoeCoder) Wrote: Not quite. I was wondering if it can be done with ONLY bringing in what I need, as apposed to most or all of tango. One of Tango's philosophies was to minimize intermodule dependencies, something that makes this porting effort a lot easier... still, those dependencies do exist, meaning that you usually can't use individual modules in isolation. I don't really get your question however. TangoD2 is just another 3rd party library... to use it you'd install the whole thing somewhere on your computer. Then, you can compile the whole thing into a library OR use a tool like xfbuild (maybe rdmd too, never had luck with that one) to compile only the modules that your program imports. -SiegeLord
Re: D2 port of Tango
On 10/18/2011 09:15 AM, SiegeLord wrote: Caligo Wrote: Why? What's the point? Why not work on Phobos instead? Aside from the obvious philosophical differences, which I am NOT going to get into, porting D1 projects is an important reason. -SiegeLord While I can see the desirability of porting good D1 projects, from my point of view when Tango became popular the usability of D1 plummeted. Too many tools would only work either with or without Tango installed. And I kept having installation problems. So I'm *not* looking forwards to seeing Tango in D2. If this could be done without requiring phobos to be disabled, and without mangling it, then I would have many fewer problems with it, but as it is...Tango for D1 left a VERY bad taste in my mouth. Very. In fact it was one of the major reasons I switched to D2 while it was still quite flakey.
D2 port of Tango
I just wanted to get the word out about a little project me and a few other people been working on for the few past months, in case anyone feels like helping out (or just as an FYI). This project is the D2 port of the Tango framework library. You can read about it here: https://github.com/SiegeLord/Tango-D2 We are currently a little more than half way done in terms of modules fiddled with. Currently there are 181 modules ported out of approximately 343 (give or take 20). Currently only the dmd compiler and Linux platform are supported... but obviously we want to get all the other platforms/compilers as time goes on. I'm guessing at the current rate of porting we'll be done in about half a year. Now, the project is actually two projects in one. The first project is a D2 port proper that tries to keep API semantics the same as the D1 original. I preside over this aspect, and you can see the rough porting guidelines in the repository. This is the 'd2port' branch in my repository. The second project is a more ambitious effort to rewrite some aspects of Tango without preserving semantics or anything. mtachrono presides over this aspect, so you can talk to him about the motivations behind it. This is the 'master' branch in my repository. That's all. Cheers. -SiegeLord
