Steven Schveighoffer Wrote: > On Wed, 06 Oct 2010 17:51:33 -0400, Nick Sabalausky <[email protected]> wrote: > > IMHO, the primary reason for Tango has been eroding (at least for D2). > > As I > > always saw it, the whole point of Tango was that Phobos was basically > > early-alpha-level with practically no features, and no one actively > > working > > on it (just a little bit of occasional attention from Walter). In those > > days, Tango mage *perfect* sense. But Phobos2 has come such a long way, > > and > > has the added bonus of not leaving you lost in epic package/class > > hierarchies. I don't mean to bash Tango, I used it and loved it for a > > long > > time. I'm just not sure it's really needed on D2. > > As a library, I loved and used Tango for quite a while. It's still a very > good library. I don't think the reasons it won't be ported are technical.
Some traitors left the development team. 50% bullshit FUD claims about the attribution clause and other shit talk wrt the complexity of package hierarchies were necessary to Boost (pun intended) the adoption of the horrible template abusing bloat library (see the big executable OMG! threads). A Phobos oriented book (again with no attribution to Tango development in D's history) was written to bash Tango. Now we are wondering how this all happened. Exciting times!
