Any chance to call Tango as Extended Standard Library

[John Reimer]

Hello Don,

>> This somehow parallels my original thinking too which I've mentioned
>> before. I am all for the druntime, and it certainly will be a net
>> gain if both Tango V2 (if it ever surfaces complete) and Phobos can
>> share it once D2 is stable.  But I'm afraid, it is still a grave
>> difficulty for new users to face two different libraries.  Now that
>> I've waited and think about it longer, I'm not sure what to make of
>> it.  How does one promote this twin package deal for D.  I predict
>> that the first person that finds a clever way to promote D 2.0 and
>> it's shiny new twin-library / pick-your-style feature will be a D
>> hero forever. ;-)
>> 
>> No, it's not bad.
>> 
> <small rant>
> I completely disagree. I think the two libraries is a disaster. I can
> see that so many people have been exposed to a lifetime of propaganda
> that "competition is a good thing", but it's just propaganda.
> Competition inevitably means wasted effort, and it's obvious in D.
> </small rant>


No, Don, some of it may be propoganda when that is the only reason put forward 
(ie. that competition is always a good thing).  Others may merely be trying 
to be hopeful.  In my case, you may call my hopefulness a delusion, but I 
think you will see by the context of my post that I'm rather clueless to 
know how it will work.  I'm completely baffled to know how it can go forward, 
but I don't want to be the Spreader of Doom and Gloom if I don't know all 
the details that are going on behind the scenes.  That's where I think more 
communication is absolutely critical for D to get along well.


More honest perhaps would have been for me just to remove "it's not bad".
 

> Note, however that the gulf between Phobos and Tango mostly exists in
> I/O; and C++ also has two I/O packages (the one inherited from C, and
> the awful iostreams). So I don't think this is a big a problem as
> stated. If we work at it, we could move the difference to be entirely
> a I/O difference. But that would require willingless to do it, and I'm
> not sure that it's really there.
> 
> <big rant>
> In my attempt to bring both libraries together I have experienced
> reactions from both sides which appeared hostile (or at least
> reluctant)
> to a merger. Apart from Sean and myself, I don't see much evidence
> that
> people actually want them to merge. They just want the other one to
> disappear.
> </big rant>


At this point, I think people (those not involved in Phobos or Tango development) 
would take it anyway it could be made to work.  The reluctance appears mostly 
from those involved in both libraries.   If there is a creative way to merge 
two very different styles, then I think it would be amazing.  But, from what 
I see, there would have to be more interaction and dicussion among both project 
developers because the core team is the one carrying the D design banner. 
  My personal opinion is that I don't know how a merger would work anymore. 
 If you or anybody has got some detailed ideas, it would be fun to see them. 
:-P


/How-to-do-an-about-face-on-"No, it's not bad"/


The danger, of course, is that Tango will not be taken seriously again for 
D 2.0.  If Tango manages to garner the lion-share of popularity as they did 
with D 1.0 (LDC compiler suite is one example of the significant sway Tango 
has had on D 1.0 ), then I think I'm going to just throw up my hands.  Yes, 
I think something has to be done: ignoring Tango is not going to be a healthy 
option for D.  Either that or Phobos2 will have to be so good that people 
will drop Tango faster than they would a red-hot frying pan.  Frankly, it 
will have to be absolutely extraordinary to manage that.  Or maybe Tango 
v2 just won't appear because it lacks the d-insider connection.  How's that 
for Doom and Gloom? :-(


-JJR