Any chance to call Tango as Extended Standard Library

[Don]

John Reimer wrote:
> Hello Don,
> 
>> dsimcha wrote:
>>
>>> == Quote from Don (nospam at nospam.com)'s article
>>>
>>>> <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>
>>> On a purely philosopical note, yes, cooperation is better than
>>> competition *if* there's enough of a consensus among the parties
>>> involved as to how things should be run.  However, this is a *BIG*
>>> if.  The problem with ideologies that are strongly against
>>> competition is that this is very seldom true in the real world.
>>> (Phobos vs. Tango is one example)  In these cases, where there is
>>> simply no consensus, the only realistic alternative to competition is
>>> to have winners and losers picked in a dictatorial fashion by some
>>> form of authority.  Yes, this authority could be selected
>>> democratically by voting, but tyranny of the majority is still
>>> tyranny.  In the case of Phobos vs. Tango, Walter could
>>> hypothetically just try his absolute hardest to kill off Tango, in
>>> the name of preventing competition, but I'm sure noone wants that.
>>> Therefore, where no true consensus exists or ever realistically will
>>> exist, competition is often a lesser evil than having a winner
>>> arbitrarily picked by some form of authority.
>>>
>> I'm not convinced that there really is a major idealogical difference
>> between Phobos and Tango. At the time Tango was formed, Phobos was
>> virtually stagnant. It was a random accretion of contributions by
>> various authors from various points in D's history. All changes to
>> Phobos were manually made by Walter, who had too much on his plate
>> already. _Nobody_ thought that that situation was ideal.
>>
>> Tango1 is in direct competition with Phobos1, but Phobos1 is frozen.
>> Phobos2 is _not_ the same as Phobos1, and breaks compatibility with it
>> in many serious ways. And Phobos1 and 2 are likely to diverge even
>> more with time.
>>
>> There are in fact many similarities between Phobos2 and Tango1.
>>
>> Now we're getting some genuinely different approaches between Phobos2
>> and Tango1, but they seem to be driven as much by the new capabilities
>> in D2, as by philosophical differences. So I see two critical
>> questions:
>> (1) to what extent will Tango2 embrace D2 features, at the expense of
>> backward compatibility with Tango1? (The more it embraces D2, the
>> closer
>> it will become to Phobos2); and
>> (2) are both libraries prepared to eliminate the many superficial
>> differences between them?
>> Can we merge Tango2 and Phobos2, given that neither of them completely
>> exist yet?
>>
> 
> 
> I agree that these are the critical questions, and we will need to see 
> them answered eventually.  The question is "when?"   I suppose, the 
> Tango people probably can't answer that until they see a stable D 2.0 
> and a complete Phobos 2.  On the other hand, perhaps its a very good 
> time for Tango guys to be introduced to the Phobos 2 floor plan so that 
> both sides can see if their goals can merge somehow.
> 
> -JJR

And in fact, a Tango2 floor plan would be a good idea, too. For example, 
now that D2 supports foreach ranges, Tango containers will almost 
certainly want to support them.