Polishing D - suggestions and comments

Jason House jason.james.house at gmail.com
Sun Jan 27 08:04:33 PST 2008


Jesse Phillips wrote:
> I would like to also state my opinion on the Standard Library matter
> (coming from someone that hasn't used Tango). Tango should be standard. I
> don't think Phobos should die, but in general it looks like Tango has
> taken the lead. This is not to say that the one with the most features
> wins, but the one that is getting the most project support. Dsource is
> being filled with Tango based code; even ports from Phobos code bases. In
> my view the D language contributors have spoken, Tango is the library to
> use in development.

I agree that Tango should be considered standard, or at least put on equal
footing with Phobos, such as releasing dmd with both Phobos and Tango.  Of
course, Tangobos really makes things simple... Releasing dmd with a combo
of Tango and Tangobos is probably more consistent.  The only problem I see
with that is that tango has not been on the D 2.x train.  Maybe just 1.x
releases should do this?

In my ideal world, as changes to the D compiler occur, some motivated Tango
maintainer would get advance warning and ensure compatibility prior to
official release.  I don't know if this simply means branding some Phobos
maintainers to have a dual role.

Personally, I switched from Phobos to Tango when I stumbled upon GC issues
in Phobos (that were well documented for a very long time) that had been
fixed in Tango long before I discovered them.  At the time, it looked like
Tango had better developer support than Phobos.  As an additional
side-effect, items that I had banged my head against with Phobos were
solved rather simply with Tango.  These included platform-independent
timing control and threading.  My only problem with Tango was trying to get
line-buffered console/file I/O to work.  At the time, the docs in that area
did not exist.  It wasn't very easy to figure out from API docs.



More information about the Digitalmars-d mailing list