Andrei Alexandrescu wrote:
John Reimer wrote:
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.
Beware of the false choice. Ideally, Phobos2 will be so good, and Tango2
will be so good, that people will enjoy using either or both together.
Andrei
People will be forced to use both together, which will be annoying,
since they overlap. A third party library depending on Phobos will use
Phobos time types and functions; one using Tango will depend on Tango
time stuff; client code will be forced to convert back and forth.
Or, for example, subtle differences in file path handling between Phobos
and Tango (I recall some people on IRC having minor issues with Tango's
path handling in obscure cases that were contrary to specifications but
occasionally used).
That sort of annoyance will not be extremely common, but it'll happen.
It's another source of friction. It's a bad thing.
It's okay if the means of working with data types are entirely different
in Phobos and Tango. The types themselves should be the same.
