On 11/05/2011 10:56 AM, Dejan Lekic wrote:
On Sat, 05 Nov 2011 14:50:09 +0000, zsxxsz wrote:
I don't like Phobos design, which takes all libs in the same path
looking so urgly, but tango seperate libs in different path according to
its function using,
so I like tango's design.
You will never satisfy both worlds (simplicity vs flexibility). Both
Phobos and Tango have their place in the D community. It is unfortunate
many people in the D community fails to see it. Also, it is unfortunate
(but very easy to explain) that Tango project started as a complete
implementation of the run-time library. We debate this for years on irc://
irc.freenode.org/d and it never ends. I belong to the group that like the
way Phobos does things, but unlike some people I think Tango is a
brilliant, high-level library. I wish we had druntime when Tango project
started, but nothing is lost, I believe Tango2 project will fit nicely on
top of druntime, and live long and prosperous life.
The reason why I also like Tango (even though I never used it in anything
serious) is that it reminds me a lot of Java API which is robust, reach
and intuitive. Tango IO is very similar to Java NIO...
If Tango is compatible with Phobos, then I don't mind it. I'm not real
tight on either disk space or RAM. The prior version, however, required
that Phobos be removed to install, so you could either use Tango
libraries *OR* Phobos libraries. And Tango was often broken, where
Phobos usually worked. This divided the community, and gifted us with
REAMS of non-usable projects.
So I'm just a bit skittish when I hear the name "Tango" these days.
(Perhaps it worked better on MSWind platforms. But it still divided a
community that was already smaller than optimal.)
