Polishing D - suggestions and comments

[Lars Ivar Igesund]

Jarrod wrote:

> On Sat, 26 Jan 2008 22:34:43 -0800, Kris wrote:
> 
>> "Jarrod" <qwerty at ytre.wq> wrote in message
>> news:fnh54c$2utd$1 at digitalmars.com... [snip]
>>> from what I've seen you seem to be very strongly against any form of
>>> it.
>> 
>> That's just not the case. Anyone at the D conference would probably
>> verify that <g>
>>
>>
>>> If Tango was made because Phobos was in tatters in the past, then what
>>> is the motivation now?
>> 
>> Forgive me, but I have to ask if you know much about the Tango library?
>> I mean, how long have you used it for? It's really not my goal to simply
>> contradict your points (which are all good questions, btw), but there is
>> rather a lot of supposition being expressed about Tango today <g>
> 
> I don't read up on the history of a library, I'm merely an end user. I
> find it odd you think using the library for longer would change my
> knowledge of Tango's design goals particularly in relation to Phobos.
> I just see the situation for how it currently is:
> Two completely different core libraries. Bad.

Not completely different, but Tango's runtime has fixes that necessiated
breaking changes. AFAIK, the only compatibility issue still unresolved is
the thread API and that really has to be handled in the Phobos end (that's
were many of the fixes have been applied).

> Pretty simple issue. Apparently, not simple to solve though.

Phobos has its own obligations towards its users in terms of backwards
compatibility, plus that even if we believe the Tango runtime is of good
quality, Walter et al probably wish to confirm this by themselves. Maybe
they won't use the runtime wholesale, but just make sure it is compatible.
In any case isn't this an instant fix (we're talking a full library),
although it seems pretty easy from a birds eye perspective.

-- 
Lars Ivar Igesund
blog at http://larsivi.net
DSource, #d.tango & #D: larsivi
Dancing the Tango