Tangobos positioning

[Kris]

"Bill Baxter" <dnewsgroup at billbaxter.com> wrote in message 
news:fniheh$1a0$1 at digitalmars.com...
> It's great that the Tango team is bundling Tangobos with Tango these days. 
> But the Tangobos page on dsource[1] still basically says it's a band-aid 
> only intended to help ease the transition from Phobos to Tango. It takes 
> the tone that Phobos is crap and you're going to "change sides" once you 
> get your superior library working.

Then perhaps you could help to resolve that? There's always room for another 
willing pair of hands, and the doc is in a Wiki so that anyone and everyone 
can easily participate ;)

> Also, just a marketing thing, but I would suggest that the wording on the 
> Tangobos site be changed from emphasizing "compatibility layer" to "a port 
> of Phobos".  It mentions in passing that it is basically a port, but I 
> would make that the primary description.  The reason I think the 
> "compatibility layer" description is bad is because "layer" implies slow 
> and bug-prone.   Slow because it implies theres some extra layer of 
> indirection there translating Phobos calls into Tango calls (which there 
> isn't for 99% of it IIUC), and bug prone because trying to emulate API Y 
> using API X usually reveals a number of "impedance mismatches" in 
> practice.  It's a port of Phobos.  Or you could say a copy of Phobos with 
> minor adjustments to make the code work with Tango.  "compatibility layer" 
> sounds bloated.

Seems like a good approach. Would you mind fixing the Wiki page, please? 
That would be a big help