Two standard libraries?

[Alan Knowles]

I have to second this, but more from the reality of people depending on 
tango in their libraries. From what I've seen of tango, It's a bit 
over-designed/engineered for my taste, but I could easily change my 
opinion one day, and I've not found any justification for using it yet.

What irk's me though is that dsource is starting to see code that 
depends on tango. Which is adding a a huge barrier/dependancy that 
resulted in me just completely re-writing some code from scratch rather 
than re-using something already on dsource. I hate doing that, but 
forcing tango on downloading my code, is not something I'm particularly 
want to do at present.

While It doesnt sound like Walter will allow a more open commit policy 
on phobos, I'm at a bit of a loss to see how this could be resolved..

I'd hate to see where dsource ends up with a complete mishmash of phobos 
and tango only libraries.

Regards
Alan

Steve Teale wrote:
> It bothers me that Phobos and Tango seem to be completely divergent.
> One of the things that makes a language successful is that it has a
> good standard library.  It seems that with D, you have to be a
> betting man - which standard library will prevail.
> 
> 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). Any other approach seems to me to reek
> of vanity.
> 
> I am not saying that Phobos is perfect.  It has lots of omissions,
> but I have a feeling that it is about at the right level to enable
> authors to write the more OO stuff on top of it.
> 
> I'm sure that this is a sensitive subject, but there you go!  I think
> we all agree that Walter has done a damn good job on D, so why should
> we reject his thinking on Phobos?  I've been watching Walter for a
> long time now, and in my book, he knows as much about his subject as
> anyone does, especially considering the coverage that's expected of
> him.
> 
> If D is to succeed, I think we should work together rather than
> compete.  I'd like to see a much more formal system for contributors
> to take responsibility for areas of Phobos.  Maybe it exists, but if
> it does, it's hardly in your face.  I'd also like to see people back
> off on trying to replace it.  Let's improve it and augment it.
> 
>