Give me a break

[Nick Sabalausky]

"Tom S" <h3r3tic at remove.mat.uni.torun.pl> wrote in message 
news:h2bfaa$1hlm$1 at digitalmars.com...
> Lutger wrote:
>> Tom S wrote:
>>
>>> Yigal Chripun wrote:
>> (snip)
>>>> IMHO, the Tango vs. Phobos licensing issue is the biggest bikeshed 
>>>> color
>>>> problem in the D realm and the only people that can solve it are the
>>>> tango devs and walter and co. of which Neither are willing to budge.
>>> Uhhh... try listening to Tango folks sometimes. They really have tried.
>>>
>>
>> If you can forgive my ignorance, what is the current Tango/Phobos problem 
>> you see and refer to here? Is it related to D1 or also concerns a 
>> possible  future Tango D2?
>
> I'm mostly a Tango user, not its developer, so I might be misinformed, but 
> there doesn't seem to be any licensing issue except a conceptional one. 
> The bottom of the following thread has some info: 
> http://www.digitalmars.com/d/archives/digitalmars/D/Any_chance_to_call_Tango_as_Extended_Standard_Library_82239.html
>
> As for other issues - there's very little communication between the 'D 
> Team' and the 'Tango Team'. Much could be learned and borrowed from it, 
> but you don't see that in Phobos 2. Looks like we're going to end up with 
> two 'utility libraries' that are not compatible with one another and 
> instead of complementing each other, they offer ways to do the same things 
> in a slightly different manner.
>

Andrei had some reason (license-related, IIRC) for deliberately not looking 
at Tango at all. Maybe that's the license issue being referred to? (I'm 
about as in-the-dark about it as you.)

> IIRC, Tango devs claim that its runtime is better than druntime, which 
> also only supports DMD at the moment. And apparently, there's been very 
> little contact with Sean lately, so it's a case of 'us' vs 'them' again.
>

Can anyone in-the-know comment on this? (Also, I thought tango runtime == 
druntime? At least for D2.)