On Mon, Jan 25, 2016 at 9:34 AM, Rikki Cattermole via Digitalmars-d-announce <digitalmars-d-announce@puremagic.com> wrote:
> On 25/01/16 8:16 PM, tsbockman wrote: > >> On Monday, 25 January 2016 at 07:03:35 UTC, Russel Winder wrote: >> >>> The strategy should be "get rid of anything in Phobos that can be put >>> out as a separate library". >>> >> >> This makes no sense as a standard: since neither DMD nor druntime is >> allowed to depend upon Phobos, everything in Phobos *could* be put into >> a separate library. >> > > I had a long post replying to Russel and to put it bluntly, its just wrong. > We are most definitely losing people simply because they expect certain > code in the standard library. Like windowing and image. > Things like sockets are lower on their priority list. > > In their mind we are not even a 'programming language'. > > Phobos does need to be bigger, but not fully inclusive. > If most people won't use something, don't add it. > > Sure there is arguments against this, but there is a certain amount we > must standardize and agree upon as a community. Phobos most certainly is > the place to do this. Otherwise we will be going round in circles for a > much longer period then we should and not growing much. > I'm going to quote you there: to put it bluntly you are plain wrong. We do not, and no one does, need a kitchen sink standard library. Look at python, look at Go, these are two of the fastest growing languages out there. They are: - Extremely easy to pick up and use. - Have excellent documentation and simple naming conventions - Have fantastic 3rd party open source libraries How does one find the "right" library for a task? - The community refers devs to their preferred / popular libs - There are excellent tutorials / how-tos that show case the library If we spent less time fussing of what gets into phobos and more time making good libraries for code.dlang.org and let the best ones win out we'd get much better stuff much quicker.
