On Tuesday, 26 January 2016 at 22:33:32 UTC, tsbockman wrote:
1) The prospect of getting something into the standard library is a huge motivator for (at least some) potential contributors.

I am not sure if that is the right motivation. Sounds like recipe for bloat. Good libraries evolve from being used in real applications. Many applications.

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.

Then don't use libraries from unreliable teams.

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.

Code quality is one thing, but if it has not been used in many applications, how can you then know if the abstraction is particularly useful?

There is nothing wrong with having a set of recommended libraries, e.g. a DSP library with FFT. But having things like FFT in the standard library is just crap. Even Apple does not do that, they have a separate library called Accelerate for such things. There is no way you can have the same interface for FFT across platforms. The structure of the data is different, the accuracy is different, all for max performance.

In general the standard library should just be the most basic things, even file system support is tricky for a system level programming language. For instance, on some cloud platforms you don't get to read/write parts of a file. You do it as one big atomic write/read.

Reply via email to