Top 5

[Don]

Jarrett Billingsley wrote:
> On Wed, Oct 8, 2008 at 10:38 PM, Bill Baxter <wbaxter at gmail.com> wrote:
>> On Thu, Oct 9, 2008 at 11:22 AM, bearophile <bearophileHUGS at lycos.com> wrote:
>>> Bill Baxter:
>>>> But as a meta-wish I  heartily agree with whoever it was who said the
>>>> development process needs to be made more open.
>>> I hope it's not wrong to show this link here:
>>> http://www.digitalmars.com/webnews/newsgroups.php?art_group=digitalmars.D&article_id=77168
>>>
>> To those more directly involved: Would I be wrong saying the
>> Phobos/Tango split never would have happened if D had a truly open
>> development process?  I know Sean wanting to experiment with different
>> GCs was one reason for it, but if Sean had been able to get access to
>> the official D runtime to begin with, I suspect he would have designed
>> his extensions in a way that was more compatible with the existing
>> code.  Let me know if I'm way off base there.
>>
>> --bb
>>
> 
> There probably never would have been a split.  If the community
> developed (or had a major hand in developing) the standard library,
> there would have been no reason to create an alternate.

The community _was_ playing the major part in developing Phobos. At 
least in the time I've been involved with D. The problem was, it was 
incredibly painful to get stuff into it. (Purely for technical reasons, 
not because of reluctance on Walter's part). So Phobos was almost 
completely stagnant.

If Phobos had been on dsource a year or two earlier, the split might not 
have happened.