Polishing D - suggestions and comments

[Bill Baxter]

Kris wrote:
> "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?

Heh heh.  By "get religion" I just mean you have to make a significant 
non-default choice that will affect and influence your subsequent 
actions.  And once you "believe in Tango" it's difficult to share your 
code with other "non-believers" without first getting them to convert first.

--bb