Phobos/Tango Unification Plans (rationale)

[Don]

Moritz Warning wrote:
> On Mon, 13 Oct 2008 09:56:06 +0000, Moritz Warning wrote:
> 
>> On Mon, 13 Oct 2008 09:31:46 +0200, Don wrote:
>>
>> [..]
>>> My preferred option would be to remove tango.math.Math (stupid name
>>> anyway), combine it with tango.math.IEEE (another doubtful name) and
>>> rename it as std.math.
>>> The more advanced math functions would remain in Tango, since I like
>>> the two-level heirachy which Tango provides. The advanced functions
>>> which are currently duplicated (eg, std.math.tgamma) would be removed
>>> from Phobos.
>>>
> 
> The near future is that Tango and Phobos will live next to each other 
> because they are about to get a a common runtime.
> 
> Phobos may become a library for starting with D and people will switch to 
> Tango further or later. Similar to the way it is already.
> 
> People who (have to?) care about the Phobos license (Public Domain) vs. 
> Tango license (BSD style/Public Domain mix) will probably stay with 
> Phobos.
> 
> 
> Tango already shares quite some code with Phobos.
> So it might be not that unlikely that Tango and Phobos would be bundled 
> along with a compiler. Phobos would then be able to redirect to Tango for 
> shared code.

> 
> Maybe Phobos will be dropped and Walter&staff become part of the Tango 
> team. But that would introduces a bunch of human related problems.

When I look at the team for Phobos and Tango, I actually don't see that 
many areas where they are in direct competition.

Andrei and Bartosz seem much more interested in algorithms and stuff 
close to the runtime, whereas Tango has a lot of contributers with a 
much stronger application focus, and a huge body of code that began in 
Mango. It would be a monumental waste of time for Andrei to implement a 
HttpClient code, for example.