Standard Library Concerns (Phobos / Tango)

[Alexander Panek]

Dan wrote:
>> I don't have a quarrel with your chosen style of coding, however it 
>> sounds as though your reasons are because you do not want to learn a new 
>> style.
> 
> Well, not unless it's a noticeable improvement inside.  Since I can't really understand the algorithms at play, and they're both roughly the same "ratio of classes to real code", I see no advantages to it; just wasted time learning a new set of sequences of letters.
> 
>> This is fine too, but it is not a reason to prevent the switch of 
>> a standard library. Besides, after having talked with Kris, I believe, he 
>> says that the object/function ratio of Phobos vs Tango is about the same.
> 
> Prevent?  Why cause?

Please read the initial post of that thread. (oh and the vast amount of 
other threads about that topic, too, maybe) Thank you. :P

>> Lastly I don't think you should be offended. I love the C feeling of 
>> Phobos, I still have yet to really use Tango (reading the book now) 
> 
> I was mildly offended by someone saying that only "dead projects" use 
 > Phobos; like "only cool kids consume our product".

It seems to me like most of the newer and still evolving projects seem 
to either support Tango or are based on Tango. Nothing to get offended 
by. Also, if that's not the case, Phobos projects must have some backlog 
demand in marketing strategies, eh? ;)
(Really no offense intended)

>> I've 
>> been around since '06. My statements where based on the trends I have 
>> observed. There are projects that are still developed under Phobos, but 
>> most of the highly active/highly used projects switch/support both.
> 
> Yeah, I tried once but ultimately realized I was creating two separate 
 > programs from the same source to accomplish the exact same thing; and I
 > found it unneccessarily(sp?) complicating.

What kind of program was that, if I may ask?

Kind regards,
Alex