"Phango" container classes

[Regan Heath]

Janice Caron wrote:
> On 10/2/07, Lars Ivar Igesund <larsivar at igesund.net> wrote:
>> As it is, I
>> would expect most (if not all) to want Tango's runtime ahead of Phobos'
>> given compatible interfaces.
> 
> Well certainly not "all", because "all" includes me.
> 
> You have to realise, a lot of people, myself included, adopt the
> philosophy "If an engine ain't broke, don't fix it". If there is /no
> need/ to replace the runtime (which there isn't), then I'm not going
> to do it, because what I have right now works just fine, so I'm not
> going to risk breaking anything by changing it.
> 
> On the other hand, I'd have no problems with just importing a module
> to get me lots of cool new classes.

Sometimes "broken" is difficult to define.

I have the impression (perhaps mistaken) that the main point of 
difference between the phobos and tango runtime is that tango's is 
better organised, has less coupling, and allows for more advanced 
features to be built upon it (some of which are already present in Tango).

Now, I could be wrong, and if so perhaps Sean or Kris can fill me (and I 
suspect some of the rest of us) in on what exactly the main differences 
are in the core runtime.

If I'm not too far off the mark, and if you take the view that those 
things are important and/or requirements then in that sense phobos is 
broken.

I'm not knocking phobos or Walter, heck I'm not even using tango at this 
point, but then, I'm not working on any projects in D of any significant 
size at the moment.

Assuming I am not delusional then it is my hope that the tango runtime 
will either replace or be a model for change to the phobos one.

I also have complete faith in both Walter and the tango guys, in that I 
simply assume they will both do whatever is best for D, and by extension me.

Regan