On 02/02/2013 05:50 PM, Jacob Carlborg wrote:
I can tell you this about Ruby. Its package manager, RubyGems, is one its greatest assets.
Don't get me wrong. I'm not speaking out against a package library per se, I think that would be an excellent idea. I'm just against the idea of narrowing Phobos' scope too strongly in favour of various things being provided by contributed libraries.
Just because a library has many dependencies doesn't mean it's badly designed. It could just mean that it's flexible and modular.
I agree, but the example I was talking about really was just frustrating and opaque.
Do you rather prefer how most C and C++ library works. They all implement everything from scratch. String classes, containers, algorithms and so on. Or they bundle a third party library within their own library forcing me to use it even though I already have it installed out of the box.
No, I don't like the typical C/C++ library situation -- that's why I'd like to see as much functionality as possible in a well-designed and supported standard library implementation.
