Any chance to call Tango as Extended Standard Library

[Andrei Alexandrescu]

Steven Schveighoffer wrote:
> "Piotrek" wrote
>> Hello!
>>
>> It's just an idea. After reading about issues on disallowing DWT to stay 
>> in standardization area (Anomaly on Wiki4D GuiLibraries page) some 
>> question appeared in my mind. For propaganda sake isn't it better to not 
>> make such a big division between phobos and tango in the module naming? 
>> Logically:
>>
>> phobos -> std
>> tango  -> stdex (not tango -> tango)
> 
> Let's not forget the licensing issues.  Tango is incompatible with some 
> developers license wise, as you must include attribution for Tango in any 
> derivative works (i.e. compiled binaries).  Phobos has a less restrictive 
> opt-in policy.  I think Walter intends to keep it that way, at least for 
> DMD.  Note that other compilers are free to use Tango or their own standard 
> library, the D spec is pretty free from library references.

Yah. This also creates some asymmetry, as e.g. Walter avoids looking at 
Tango whereas Phobos is out in the clear. Given that I work on Phobos 
too and know next to nothing about licensing issues, I myself defaulted 
to not looking at Tango (I did look cursory a couple of years ago, 
before being involved with Phobos.)

> I also don't think this is a bad thing.  One of two things will happen. 
> Either one library totally dominates the other, and eventually everyone 
> starts using the more popular one (the Beta/VHS route), or both libraries 
> flourish, and due to the common runtime, can be used concurrently in 
> projects (the KDE/GNOME route).  Either way, I don't see the current rift 
> between Tango/Phobos being a major detriment to D.  It will be short-lived 
> IMO.

Nicely put. I believe the same.


Andrei