Tango compatability with Phobos

[Don Clugston]

Daniel Keep wrote:
> Yigal Chripun wrote:
>> ...
>> Until we reach a merged, agreed by all one API, there is no standard
>> library for D in my mind.
> 
> "agreed by all one API"  Yeah, I don't think that's gonna happen.  Ever.
>  You're asking programmers to unilaterally agree on a large, complex topic.
> 
> These are the people who continually rewrite stuff because of "not
> invented here" or "don't like the capitalisation on the identifiers" or
> "because I felt like it" syndromes... :P
> 
>> ...
>>
>> P.S
>> i'd prefer either be able to import Cout and just have two functions
>> like print/println with formatting, or changing Cout to out (no upper
>> case letters, and without C-style shortcut names)
>> I prefer more readable java style with camel case full names rather than
>> c/c++ 3 letter abbreviations like ptr instead of pointer, buf instead of
>> buffer and etc.. (we all know that we read code a lot more than we write
>> it, so it's better to write longerIdentifierNames which would be easier
>> to read and understand later)
> 
> See, and I prefer the terseness of C.  One thing that always made me
> want to throw the computer out the window when programming Java was the
> fact that every damn statement took, at minimum, three lines to do
> anything constructive just because all the identifiers were so bloody long.
> 
> I want to write code.  Not a dissertation.  When you've got names that
> long, you just end up with this dense, unreadable mess.  Besides, if the
> names are a little bit cryptic, people will actually take the time to
> carefully read the code to make sure they understand it instead of
> assuming they know what it means, which is *clearly* better.
> 
> Give me function names I can type in under three seconds and some decent
> comments any day.
> 
> And that's the problem.  I think that for some people Phobos is better
> because it's a lot like the standard C library.  They like it like that.
>  That's why I think all the calls for a complete merge are a bit silly;
> D's unique AFAIK in that it's got a very lean, simple API and a much
> more powerful, more complete API.
> 
> Make them compatible, sure, but keep them separate.  Don't take away our
> toys just because *you* don't play with them.  :)

We can probably do a bit better than that.
I think that if we get the runtime sorted out, so that both Phobos and Tango can 
both be used together, then it ought to be possible to merge a lot of the 
implementation code. But as long as they can't be used together, the situation 
is hopeless.