Is all this Invarient **** er... stuff, premature optimisation?

[Sean Kelly]

== Quote from Me Here (p9e883002 at sneakemail.com)'s article
> Phobos vs. Tango
> I definitely don't want the dead weight of pointless OO wrappers or deeply
> nested hierarchies. Nor the "everything must be OO" philosophy.
> Once I regain access to std.string for my char[]s, (and a simple,
> expectation conformant rand() function :), I'll be happy.

Please don't discount Tango based on what has been said about it in this
forum.  I know for a fact that Walter, for example, has never even looked
at Tango (or he hadn't as of a few weeks ago anyway).  In truth, the percentage
of classes to functions in Tango is roughly the same as in Phobos... Tango is
just a much larger library.  If you're interested in algorithms and string operations,
I suggest looking at tango.core.Array and tango.text.*.  The former is basically
C++'s <algorithm> retooled for D arrays, and the latter holds all the string-specific
routines in Tango.


Sean