The role of Tango

[Kris]

"David B. Held" <dheld at codelogicconsulting.com> wrote in message 
news:fhr0at$g5a$1 at digitalmars.com...
> Kris wrote:
>> "renoX" <renosky at free.fr> wrote
>>
>>> when contributors add new code in a project, reusing the same style as 
>>> the other code is a sign of professional/mature programmers (ok, 
>>> amateurish was too strong sorry)
>>
>> Sure, RenoX. I agree completely. But the thing is, Tango was never 
>> intended to be a contribution to any other library. It is not a part of 
>> phobos. In fact, phobos is currently being reworked to have parts of 
>> Tango instead. So your point simply doesn't apply. You see the 
>> distinction? The outcome is that you're calling people "amateurish" and 
>> so on for no valid reason whatsoever.
>> [...]
>
> I think it's always worthwhile to look back on the work of others who have 
> gone before.  If I were to compare Tango to anything, I would compare it 
> to Boost.  In some ways, that is appropriate, and others, it is very 
> generous.  Like Tango, Boost was intended as a free, open-source, 
> community-contributed library designed to improve the language community 
> for which it was created.  Unlike Tango, when Boost had to choose a naming 
> convention, guess what they did?  They said: "Ultimately, we have the 
> ambition for this code to end up in the standard library.  Thus, it must 
> look like the standard library *now*." What they *didn't* say is: "Our 
> code is so good, when the standard library includes it, it just better put 
> up or shut up, yo!"

Appreciate the insights, Dave, and respect your opinion.  However, you're 
assuming Tango was designed to be included in phobos, and that is not the 
case. You're also ignoring a number of important factors. For example, Tango 
will likely change toUtf8 -> toString in order to satisfy certain 
compatability desires. That wouldn't happen with the "put up or shuttup" 
notion you discuss. Thus, your premise appears based on something 
non-factual and perhaps does not apply here?