Polishing D - suggestions and comments

[Kris]

"Bill Baxter" <dnewsgroup at billbaxter.com> wrote in message 
news:fng5c1$un8$1 at digitalmars.com...
>> 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.

That is exactly what Tango is about. It is a modular library, written 
carefully and explicitly to reduce interdependencies within the library 
itself. You might think of Tango as being composed of several onion layers, 
each of which depends upon its interior only. Tango is built to address the 
"small" and "large" library notions mentioned (and a few in between as 
necessary).


> 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

A "regular library"? Feels quite 'regular' to lots of people, so perhaps you 
could indicate what that means to you? Do you perhaps mean, it's not just a 
clone of phobos?


> doesn't require you to "get religion" first.

Tango can be somewhat different from phobos, yes. Does it require adoption 
of a "religion" to be different, Bill? Surely that's a bit of a stretch?