Polishing D - suggestions and comments

[Lars Ivar Igesund]

Bill Baxter wrote:

> Leandro Lucarella wrote:
>> Robert Fraser, el 25 de enero a las 17:31 me escribiste:
>>> Lars Ivar Igesund wrote:
>>>> I know there are a few places in Tango where an additional line may be
>>>> needed (and many where you'll need quite a few less), but without exact
>>>> examples of what people think is a problem, it is hard to make
>>>> qualified decisions on where to make improvements.
>>> Not to be negative, but I think no matter how many
>>> tests/examples/whatever show that Tango is comparable or better in speed
>>> and efficiency to Phobos, the stigma of a feature-rich, strongly
>>> abstracted/modular standard library reminds of Java and .NET . I think
>>> the fear is less based on logic and more based on association between a
>>> modular standard library and VM-based languages.
>> 
>> I second that. Phobos is closer to C/C++ stdlib, Tango to Java/.NET.
>> I think it would be great to have 2 "compatible" standard libraries. One
>> minimalist for embeded and such (phobos) and one for "big" (or not that
>> big) desktop applications (tango). Of course both should be compatible
>> and it had more sense if the "big" library were a super-set of the
>> "small" one.
> 
> However, when it comes to the low-level parts of the library (gc,
> threading, etc), I don't really see anyone arguing.  Tango's seems to be
> better.  It seems like those improvements should just be rolled back
> into Phobos.  Then Tango could go back to being a regular library that
> doesn't require you to "get religion" first.

Tango require you to "get religion" ? Also, Tango has never been a "regular"
library, if that means a library without its own runtime.

-- 
Lars Ivar Igesund
blog at http://larsivi.net
DSource, #d.tango & #D: larsivi
Dancing the Tango