Tangobos positioning

[Gregor Richards]

Bill Baxter wrote:
> Kris wrote:
>> "Bill Baxter" <dnewsgroup at billbaxter.com> wrote in message 
>> news:fniheh$1a0$1 at digitalmars.com...
>>> 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.
>>
>> Then perhaps you could help to resolve that? There's always room for 
>> another willing pair of hands, and the doc is in a Wiki so that anyone 
>> and everyone can easily participate ;)
>>
>>> 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.
>>
>> Seems like a good approach. Would you mind fixing the Wiki page, 
>> please? That would be a big help 
> 
> Sure, if it is ok for me to do so.  It's still basically Gregor's page 
> though, isn't it?  You sure it's ok to rewrite it?
> 
> --bb

I would be downright /thrilled/ if somebody took that page from me.

  - Gregor Richards