Two "standard" libraries???

[Derek Parnell]

On Fri, 14 Sep 2007 23:35:08 +0100, Stewart Gordon wrote:

> I keep hearing discussions to the effect that "D has two standard 
> libraries" - by which one invariably means Phobos and Tango.
> 
> In what respect is Tango "standard"?

The word "standard" can mean a couple of things in this context. 
(a) The meaning that you have ascribed :- "that which is automatically
deployed with each release of the reference compiler (DMD)"

 and

(b) "that which could be automatically deployed with each release of the
reference compiler (DMD), but isn't"

> Here's how I see it.  D has one standard library.  That one standard library 
> is Phobos.  I.e. Phobos is part of the D standard.  Tango isn't.


That is how I view the world too.

> Rather, Tango is an _alternative_ to the standard library

And therein lies the problem. 

There are things in phobos that a good and things in Tango that are good,
but we are forced to choose one or the other (unless we like problematic
solutions).
 
I want to use some of the great Tango functionality, but not at the cost of
losing the phobos stuff, and thus I'm not going to be using Tango. This
irks me no end because phobos is still lacking in sorely needed
functionality that Tango can supply.

>  The only thing that's complicating matters is people 
> deviating from the D standard by writing libraries that depend on Tango and 
> are thus incompatible with Phobos....

>From my simple understanding, both phobos and Tango needs some changing in
order for them to coexist in the same application. I'm hoping that all the
people concerned will address this with some urgency and consideration for
each other and the wider D community.

-- 
Derek Parnell
Melbourne, Australia
skype: derek.j.parnell