Tangobos positioning

[Bill Baxter]

It's great that the Tango team is bundling Tangobos with Tango these 
days.  But the Tangobos page on dsource[1] still basically says it's a 
band-aid only intended to help ease the transition from Phobos to Tango. 
  It takes the tone that Phobos is crap and you're going to "change 
sides" once you get your superior library working.

That's very different from the story I hear Kris preaching around here 
lately.  Which is: with Tangobos you can have the best of both worlds.

Also, just a marketing thing, but I would suggest that the wording on 
the Tangobos site be changed from emphasizing "compatibility layer" to 
"a port of Phobos".  It mentions in passing that it is basically a port, 
but I would make that the primary description.  The reason I think the 
"compatibility layer" description is bad is because "layer" implies slow 
and bug-prone.   Slow because it implies theres some extra layer of 
indirection there translating Phobos calls into Tango calls (which there 
isn't for 99% of it IIUC), and bug prone because trying to emulate API Y 
using API X usually reveals a number of "impedance mismatches" in 
practice.  It's a port of Phobos.  Or you could say a copy of Phobos 
with minor adjustments to make the code work with Tango.  "compatibility 
layer" sounds bloated.

Also the description paints the relationship between Tangobos and Tango 
as an uneasy one, which I don't think is the case (at least not anymore).


--bb
[1] http://www.dsource.org/projects/tangobos/