Tue, 28 Jul 2009 11:38:36 -0400, Adam D. Ruppe thusly wrote: > On Tue, Jul 28, 2009 at 12:23:50PM -0300, Ary Borenszweig wrote: >> But *why* use or make another one when the Tango one is already >> excellent? :( > > Copyright.
There are most likely several issues that prevent the reuse of that code. First, the indentation, module boundaries, and naming conventions may differ (tabs vs spaces, 4 vs 8 spaces, camelCase vs foo_bar etc.). Next, does it use the slow object oriented approach like the rest of Tango (and unlike Phobos, which uses a very lightweight procedural model). Are there any benchmark results that show the approach Tango uses is any good, i.e. more performant than the ones for Java and C++ (even with larger xml documents). If it is, then the idea can be copied to Phobos as well. Finally, the copyright is a problem unless it is handed over to digitalmars. Otherwise it might get troublesome to sell D later for commercial use when Phobos becomes the Standard library for D 2.0.
