"Tom S" <[email protected]> wrote in message news:[email protected]... > Lutger wrote: >> Tom S wrote: >> >>> Yigal Chripun wrote: >> (snip) >>>> IMHO, the Tango vs. Phobos licensing issue is the biggest bikeshed >>>> color >>>> problem in the D realm and the only people that can solve it are the >>>> tango devs and walter and co. of which Neither are willing to budge. >>> Uhhh... try listening to Tango folks sometimes. They really have tried. >>> >> >> If you can forgive my ignorance, what is the current Tango/Phobos problem >> you see and refer to here? Is it related to D1 or also concerns a >> possible future Tango D2? > > I'm mostly a Tango user, not its developer, so I might be misinformed, but > there doesn't seem to be any licensing issue except a conceptional one. > The bottom of the following thread has some info: > http://www.digitalmars.com/d/archives/digitalmars/D/Any_chance_to_call_Tango_as_Extended_Standard_Library_82239.html > > As for other issues - there's very little communication between the 'D > Team' and the 'Tango Team'. Much could be learned and borrowed from it, > but you don't see that in Phobos 2. Looks like we're going to end up with > two 'utility libraries' that are not compatible with one another and > instead of complementing each other, they offer ways to do the same things > in a slightly different manner. >
Andrei had some reason (license-related, IIRC) for deliberately not looking at Tango at all. Maybe that's the license issue being referred to? (I'm about as in-the-dark about it as you.) > IIRC, Tango devs claim that its runtime is better than druntime, which > also only supports DMD at the moment. And apparently, there's been very > little contact with Sean lately, so it's a case of 'us' vs 'them' again. > Can anyone in-the-know comment on this? (Also, I thought tango runtime == druntime? At least for D2.)
