Tango / Phobos / future dilemma

[Spacen Jasset]

Lars Ivar Igesund wrote:
> Spacen Jasset wrote:
> 
>> Hello,
>>
>> Currently I am using phobos for my work, which suit at the moment since
>> I am mainly using opengl.
>>
>> Unfortunately I would like use a library that requires Tango, and there
>> is yet another library that I would like to use that is coded for
>> phobos. Since they both incorporate a core runtime I presume that this
>> situation is impossible without akward workarounds?
> 
> It should be pretty trivial to support any Phobos using libraries via
> Tangobos.
> 
>> Secondly, I have an uneasy feeling about the situation whereby there are
>> two libraries that function independently of each other. What lies ahead
>> for this state of affairs; and indeed, what is Walter's and the Tango
>> team's position on it?
> 
> (Note to Spacen; the answer below is as much to others who have participated
> in this thread)
> Back at the conference, we agreed with Walter to have the runtimes
> compatible for D 2.0, and since the differences today are more or less all
> about improvements in Tango, this should be in Walter's hands. It would be
> dis-corteous to our users - both commercial and open source alike - to
> remove those improvements, that is degrade performance and unstabilize, for
> the sake of a compatibility that can be achieved via Tangobos. FWIW, to our
> knowledge, those wishing for us to comply with/use Phobos are in a very
> small minority compared to those using Tango (and Tangobos which can be
> claimed to be the opposite solution).
> 
Thanks for your replies I will try tangobos, and therefore move over to 
tango for my code.

I must admit that I have considered porting the code I have back to C++ 
- not really because of the "technical problems" with D, but because of 
the disconcerted feeling I have with situations such as this and why 
they arise.