Right now, what's the most important for the success and adoption of D?

[Anders F Björklund]

Janice Caron wrote:

> Hopefully, the intent of my post won't have been misunderstood though.
> Phobos is Walter's until (if) he relinquishes those rights, and that
> is as it should be. But that doesn't stop others from creating
> libraries that aren't called "Phobos", but that might still end up
> becoming "standards".

Honestly, I have no idea what the intent of your post was meant to be.
But DMD has / had a lot of hardcoded dependencies on Phobos internals.
The decision to fork the DMD runtime library was made in 2004 or so...
If you need some background, then look for "Phobos Rising" or "Ares" ?

Fortunately, the involved parties are now working on healing the fork.
At least to make lowlevel rt/gc pluggable, even if stdlib/API differs.
I would like Phobos to improve, even if Tango exists as an alternative.
Decoupling the runtime and standard library is a good thing either way.

Hopefully the differences between DMD/GDC and Phobos/gPhobos will also
grow smaller (they are mostly about portability to Unix, and to 64-bit)
If nothing else, then just because it's annoying in the end to have to
write code for both "version(linux)" (DMD) and "version(Unix)" (GDC)...

--anders