Steven Schveighoffer wrote:
"Piotrek" wrote
Hello!
It's just an idea. After reading about issues on disallowing DWT to stay
in standardization area (Anomaly on Wiki4D GuiLibraries page) some
question appeared in my mind. For propaganda sake isn't it better to not
make such a big division between phobos and tango in the module naming?
Logically:
phobos -> std
tango -> stdex (not tango -> tango)
Let's not forget the licensing issues. Tango is incompatible with some
developers license wise, as you must include attribution for Tango in any
derivative works (i.e. compiled binaries). Phobos has a less restrictive
opt-in policy. I think Walter intends to keep it that way, at least for
DMD. Note that other compilers are free to use Tango or their own standard
library, the D spec is pretty free from library references.
Yah. This also creates some asymmetry, as e.g. Walter avoids looking at
Tango whereas Phobos is out in the clear. Given that I work on Phobos
too and know next to nothing about licensing issues, I myself defaulted
to not looking at Tango (I did look cursory a couple of years ago,
before being involved with Phobos.)
I also don't think this is a bad thing. One of two things will happen.
Either one library totally dominates the other, and eventually everyone
starts using the more popular one (the Beta/VHS route), or both libraries
flourish, and due to the common runtime, can be used concurrently in
projects (the KDE/GNOME route). Either way, I don't see the current rift
between Tango/Phobos being a major detriment to D. It will be short-lived
IMO.
Nicely put. I believe the same.
Andrei
