Two standard libraries?

[Ender KaShae]

Steve Teale Wrote:

> It seemes to me that given Walter's definition of the language - a system programming language - that Phobos is closer to the mark.  If users want a more object oriented standard library, that's all well and good, but it should be a shoe-in, then if you want to use the OO stuff you can, but code that's been written to work with Phobos should work unmodified with other libraries.  (Note the recent discussion on C++ security). Any other approach seems to me to reek of vanity.
> 

it would be so much better if one could use both tango and phobos, for some things procedural programing makes more sense, sometimes OO programing makes more sense, and theres nothing to keep these too situations isolated from each other, since a program only imports the modules it needs I don't see why both phobos and tango can be used simultanously.

> I am not saying that Phobos is perfect.  It has lots of omissions, but I have a feeling that it is about at the right level to enable authors to write the more OO stuff on top of it.
> 
this is the approch that makes the most since to me, though a semi-standard library like boost for c++ would be nice.  the only reason I can see for rewriting the same functionality that exist in the standard library is if the existing code is slow, or completely broken