Tangobos positioning

[Bill Baxter]

Kris wrote:
> "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 

Sure, if it is ok for me to do so.  It's still basically Gregor's page 
though, isn't it?  You sure it's ok to rewrite it?

--bb