Tango vs Phobos

[Koroskin Denis]

On Thu, 14 Aug 2008 02:05:37 +0400, Paul D. Anderson  
<paul.d.removethis.anderson at comcast.andthis.net> wrote:

> Robert Fraser Wrote:
>
>> I see the D community heading for a split. One side will be D1  
>> (hopefully a D 1.5) +tango, and the other side will be D2+phobos.  I  
>> don't think of this as a bad thing nessescarily, just two different  
>> directions.
>
> First, let me say that I have the highest regard, both personally and  
> professionally, for Walter (and Andre and Bartosz and the others who are  
> working on D 2.0) and also for the Tango development team. Both groups  
> have a lot of talent and have worked hard to give us (at no cost!) a  
> great language and a great library.
>
> The Tango developers have done important and valuable work, providing  
> sturdy, efficient and rigorous implementations of many common software  
> components. They have not only provided the Tango library, but they've  
> also wrung out the language and pushed its capabilities to give us all a  
> better picture of what is possible. (I'd love to see what they could do  
> with the new features in D 2.0.)
>
> And they have been careful not to step on Walter's toes while they do  
> this. They discussed the problem with Walter at the first D Language  
> Conference and agreed on a solution: a common runtime module. They have  
> narrowed the incompatibilities between phobos and tango to a minimal set  
> and are waiting for Walter to meet them there. To live up to his part of  
> the bargain, to put it bluntly. A year later he still hasn't done so.
>
> But Walter drives development his own way. Walter himself has said that  
> the only difference between himself (and D) and a lot of other  
> replacements for C/C++ is that he's stayed with it longer than they  
> have. And so Walter will listen and respond to criticism, new concepts,  
> alternative implementations and frantic pleas, but, at the end of the  
> day, he will work toward what he sees as the best solution to the most  
> pressing problems. This is mostly a good thing -- Walter has a long-term  
> vision for the D programming language and he is determined to see it  
> through. Of course, this also has a downside. Work that doesn't advance  
> the main line that he has mapped out doesn't get his attention, or his  
> time. It's not that he's unwilling, but he's doing a lot of work on  
> developing what he sees as more fundamental things.
>
> So I don't think it is likely that Walter will delay or disturb his  
> current effort to get D 2.0 pushed out the door. And he's made it clear  
> that he not interested in going back to "fix" D 1.0. But what I would  
> really like to see (and I don't think it's asking too much) is a clear  
> statement from Walter that he will indeed make the changes the Tango  
> developers are asking for at some future date. I don't think he even  
> needs to commit himself to a specific date, just a reference point --  
> when D 2.0 is final, or when the functional programming stuff is in  
> place, or whenever. I think all that we really NEED at this point is  
> assurance that the two groups are not working at cross purposes.
>
> If this has already happened, if there is some agreement in place that I  
> just don't know about, then I apologize for this rant. But it seems like  
> little enough to ask.
>
> Paul
>

May I ask why is this post called like that?

Walter has just responded that he is ready to make the asked changes to  
the runtime, and is waiting for a permission from some Tango members to do  
this. We will see a resolution pretty soon, hopefully!