Two standard libraries?

[Sean Kelly]

Steve Teale wrote:
> 
> It seemes to me that given Walter's definition of the language - a system programming language - that Phobos is closer to the mark.  If users want a more object oriented standard library, that's all well and good, but it should be a shoe-in, then if you want to use the OO stuff you can, but code that's been written to work with Phobos should work unmodified with other libraries.  (Note the recent discussion on C++ security).

While one might argue that it is easier to wrap a strictly procedural 
library with an OO layer than vice-versa, I think the ease with which 
any library may be encapsulated in a wrapper is more dependent on its 
design (the assumptions it makes, how features are exposed, etc) than on 
whether the interface uses functions or objects.  That said, I don't 
personally consider Tango to be an object-oriented library because it 
does not require the user to define his own objects in order to use it.


Sean