Two standard libraries?

[Alexander Panek]

I can only confirm what Craig said; Tango is an approach of the
community to provide a standard library - for the community. Apart from
that, it's not about competition, actually, but about improvement. The
goal is to make D more applicable and scalable for projects with
more complex designs.

Honestly, the fact that people seem to think "Walter done a great job
with D/DMD, lets believe his libraries are best, too!", or similar,
makes me a bit scared. I really appreciate and respect Walter, of
course, but sacrificing his work, even though it (Phobos) is not his
essential competence, is just ridiculous. No offense intended, but
there are some better *library* designers out there than Walter will
ever be, while being the only developer of DMD.

Kind regards,
Alex

On Fri, 13 Jul 2007 12:17:15 -0500
"Craig Black" <cblack at ara.com> wrote:

> Dude, you are totally off base.  Vanity!?  Are you kidding me?  The
> people behind Tango are not looking for glory.  They simply want a
> better standard library and so are taking the necessary steps to
> achieve that goal.  We could "improve and augment" Phobos if Walter
> had the time to coordinate and organize contributions.  The Tango
> project is way more organized than Phobos and encourages multiple
> contributors.  I think it was created out of frustration with
> Phobos.  If Walter had been more proactive about coordinating and
> integrating outisde contributions, I don't think that Tango would
> have ever been started.
> 
> I'm not disrespecting Walter in any way.  Walter has indeed done a
> great job on the D language, but Phobos as a standard library is
> somewhat lacking. It's quite understandable that he just doesn't have
> enough time to maintain it properly.  Maintaining the D compiler is a
> full-time position. Maintaining the standard library is another full
> time position, and is more appropriately delegated to someone else.
> 
> -Craig
> 
> "Steve Teale" <steve.teale at britseyeview.com> wrote in message 
> news:f789hk$o0m$1 at digitalmars.com...
> > It bothers me that Phobos and Tango seem to be completely
> > divergent.  One of the things that makes a language successful is
> > that it has a good standard library.  It seems that with D, you
> > have to be a betting man - which standard library will prevail.
> >
> > 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.
> >
> > 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.
> >
> > I'm sure that this is a sensitive subject, but there you go!  I
> > think we all agree that Walter has done a damn good job on D, so
> > why should we reject his thinking on Phobos?  I've been watching
> > Walter for a long time now, and in my book, he knows as much about
> > his subject as anyone does, especially considering the coverage
> > that's expected of him.
> >
> > If D is to succeed, I think we should work together rather than
> > compete. I'd like to see a much more formal system for contributors
> > to take responsibility for areas of Phobos.  Maybe it exists, but
> > if it does, it's hardly in your face.  I'd also like to see people
> > back off on trying to replace it.  Let's improve it and augment it.
> >
> > 
> 
>