On Wednesday, October 13, 2010 10:37:43 klickverbot wrote: > On 10/13/10 6:56 PM, Jonathan M Davis wrote: > > I wouldn't think that it would be a problem, but I'm no expert, and we've > > had problems in the past because Tango devs thought that proposed Phobos > > code was too similar to Tango. So, as I understand it, unless we get > > specific permission from the Tango devs which wrote a particular module, > > we're trying to not have code in Phobos which is an API which is at all > > close to Tango's. That way we can avoid potential conflicts with the > > Tango devs. > > > > - Jonathan M Davis > > We had this over and over again, but I still think it should be noted > that the disaster around SOHO's code was not entirely made up by »the > Tango devs«, but originated from a single developer's phone call to > Walter Bright and was then exaggerated by large parts of the D > community, including both »sides« – your statement(s) makes it look a > bit as if it was all Tango at fault there…
I never "the" Tango devs, just Tango devs, so I'm not claiming anything about all Tango devs. I'm not even really saying whether code was or wasn't copied, but there are Tango devs who are very sensitive to anything that looks like it might have been copied from Tango, and we want to avoid any misunderstandings or issues that could arise from any Tango dev thinking that we're swiping their code. So, we avoid doing anything that even looks similar, and many of us never look at the Tango API at all, let alone the code. Whether any copying of any kind has ever taken place is irrelevant at this point. What matters is that we don't want to cause issues between the Phobos and Tango folks, so we need to generally avoid anything that makes it look like we might be swiping anything from Tango. - Jonathan M Davis