On Tuesday, 26 January 2016 at 21:47:41 UTC, Ola Fosheim Grøstad wrote:
On Tuesday, 26 January 2016 at 21:03:01 UTC, tsbockman wrote:
Also, you skipped past the "uninterested" part - this is a volunteer project, remember?

I didn't think it was a relevant argument as you can still write libraries for distribution. Keep in mind that the standard library has to be maintained and API's cannot easily be redesigned because of backwards compatibility.

Even if C/C++ have small standard libraries they provide a depressing amount of low quality functionality that one should avoid. But it is kept in for backwards compatibility and sometimes even updated and extended...

That not a good thing.

There are certainly disadvantages to the standard library model of distribution and maintenance.

On the other hand:

1) The prospect of getting something into the standard library is a huge motivator for (at least some) potential contributors.

Why? Because building a library that no one knows about/trusts is wasted effort. Getting something into `std` is among the most effective forms of marketing available, and requires little non-programming-related skill or effort on the part of the contributor.

2) Standard libraries don't enforce backwards compatibility (and high code quality in general) just for the sake of bureaucracy - they do so because these are highly desirable characteristics for basic infrastructure. People shouldn't have to rewrite their entire stack every 6 months just because someone thought of a better API for some low-level component.

Making it through D's formal review process typically raises code quality quite a lot, and the knowledge that backwards compatibility is a high priority makes outsiders much more likely to invest in actually using a library module.

In short, while you make some valid points, your analysis seems very lopsided; it completely glosses over all of the positives associated with the status quo.

Reply via email to