why a part of D community do not want go to D2 ?

[Jacob Carlborg]

On 2010-11-09 23:04, Don wrote:
> Jacob Carlborg wrote:
>> On 2010-11-09 17:43, Andrei Alexandrescu wrote:
>>> I wouldn't be surprised if Tango chose to turn away from compatibility
>>> for the second time (be it theoretical compatibility for now since there
>>> is no Tango for D2). The technical reasons are dwindling and became
>>> tenuous to argue for, but however weak they are, they could be used to
>>> promote a political motivation: a Tango/D2 offering would come again as
>>> an either-or proposition for a standard library that precludes usage of
>>> Tango2 and Phobos2 together. In my opinion that would be an extremely
>>> dangerous gambit.
>>
>> Clearly we don't see this in the same way. I see it like this, because
>> Tango was first it's druntime that chose to turn away from compatibility.
>
> Sorry, that is completely false. druntime was created specifically to
> allow Phobos and Tango to co-exist. At the time, almost all of the code
> in druntime was written by Sean, and he was leading the Tango runtime
> development. The expectation was that Tango would continue to use Sean's
> runtime, it was just in a separate project.

Of course that would be the preferred way, there should have been some 
kind of agreement for this (maybe there was but never fulfilled?) But 
you also have to look at it from Tangos point of view. Why would Tango 
drop support for anything that isn't DMD 32bit? Or should Tango keep 
half of it's runtime in it's own repository and for the other half use 
druntime.

>>>> For this to work the Tango team and the druntime
>>>> contributors/maintainers have collaborate and work together on a
>>>> runtime.
>>>
>>> That runtime is druntime. If there is no understanding of that at Tango,
>>> that is suicide.
>>
>> Apparently not, since Sean ripped out all that wasn't necessary for
>> Phobos but is necessary for Tango. Why are you blaming everything on
>> Tango all the time?
>
> Sean took all the code he had written. The other minor contributors did
> not yet give permission for their code to be used, so of course it could
> not be included.

I really think it's a shame they couldn't/wanted to give permission for 
their code to be used.

-- 
/Jacob Carlborg