digitalmars.D - Re: std.xml should just go
- Gary Whatmore <no spam.sp> Feb 03 2011
- Andrei Alexandrescu <SeeWebsiteForEmail erdani.org> Feb 03 2011
- Jonathan M Davis <jmdavisProg gmx.com> Feb 03 2011
- Jonathan M Davis <jmdavisProg gmx.com> Feb 03 2011
- "Nick Sabalausky" <a a.a> Feb 03 2011
Steven Schveighoffer Wrote:On Thu, 03 Feb 2011 16:41:08 -0500, Daniel Gibson <metalcaedes gmail.com> wrote:Am 03.02.2011 22:26, schrieb Steven Schveighoffer:On Thu, 03 Feb 2011 16:03:55 -0500, Daniel Gibson <metalcaedes gmail.com> 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! -G.W.
Feb 03 2011
On 2/3/11 3:51 PM, Gary Whatmore wrote:Steven Schveighoffer Wrote:On Thu, 03 Feb 2011 16:41:08 -0500, Daniel Gibson<metalcaedes gmail.com> wrote:Am 03.02.2011 22:26, schrieb Steven Schveighoffer:On Thu, 03 Feb 2011 16:03:55 -0500, Daniel Gibson <metalcaedes gmail.com> 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. Thanks, Andrei
Feb 03 2011
Jonathan M Davis <jmdavisProg gmx.com> 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<metalcaedes gmail.co=
=20 wrote:Am 03.02.2011 22:26, schrieb Steven Schveighoffer:On Thu, 03 Feb 2011 16:03:55 -0500, Daniel Gibson =20 <metalcaedes gmail.com> wrote:Am 03.02.2011 21:48, schrieb Tomek Sowi=C5=84ski: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. =20 http://lists.puremagic.com/pipermail/phobos/2010-April/000370.html =20 The pertinent quote from there: =20 "In my opinion, claiming a clean room implementation of an API in D =
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 t=
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. =20 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. =20 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. =2D Jonathan M Davis
Feb 03 2011
On Thursday, February 03, 2011 13:51:41 Gary Whatmore wrote:Steven Schveighoffer Wrote:On Thu, 03 Feb 2011 16:41:08 -0500, Daniel Gibson <metalcaedes gmail.co=
=20 wrote:Am 03.02.2011 22:26, schrieb Steven Schveighoffer:On Thu, 03 Feb 2011 16:03:55 -0500, Daniel Gibson =20 <metalcaedes gmail.com> wrote:Am 03.02.2011 21:48, schrieb Tomek Sowi=C5=84ski: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. =20 http://lists.puremagic.com/pipermail/phobos/2010-April/000370.html =20 The pertinent quote from there: =20 "In my opinion, claiming a clean room implementation of an API in D =
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 t=
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. =20 They always complain about us doing NIH code. But they're forcing us!
There's no need to be rude. The Tango guys have done some great stuff. Benc= hmarks=20 have shown that Tango creams most (if not all) other major xml libraries ou= t=20 there. It's lightning fast, and they've done solid work. But they're using a different license and don't necessarily like the direct= ion=20 that D2 or Phobos has gone, since it's definitely different than what they'= ve been=20 doing, and they don't want people copying their code and putting it under a= more=20 permissive license. I don't happen to agree with them, but I see no reason = to be=20 rude to them about it. Now, in some cases, if you can get ahold of the people who worked on a=20 particular set of code in Tango, it _is_ possible to get them to agree to l= et=20 you port their code to Phobos and the Boost license. However, that requires= =20 getting ahold of them and getting their consent, which isn't always easy. A= nd=20 they have every right to refuse if that's what they want. Regardless, being rude doesn't help. All that's likely to do is beget ruden= ess=20 on their part. Let's try and be civil. =2D Jonathan M Davis
Feb 03 2011
"Gary Whatmore" <no spam.sp> wrote in message news:iif81d$1ch8$1 digitalmars.com...Steven Schveighoffer Wrote:On Thu, 03 Feb 2011 16:41:08 -0500, Daniel Gibson <metalcaedes gmail.com> wrote:Am 03.02.2011 22:26, schrieb Steven Schveighoffer:On Thu, 03 Feb 2011 16:03:55 -0500, Daniel Gibson <metalcaedes gmail.com> 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!
Nothing of that sort happened. One of the Tango guys was thoughtful enough to inform Walter of a situation that *could* be viewed by a purely hypothetical super-uptight third person as being potentially infringing. Walter is (perhaps understandably) paranoid about potential accusations so disallowed the code in question. This NG then exploded in speculation, and the Tango guys fueled that fire by being extremely reluctant to say anything at all about the matter. The problem was miscommunication and legal bullshit, *not* a "good guys vs bad guys" situation (if there was *any* "bad guys" side it's the court/legal system).
Feb 03 2011