On Tuesday, 25 November 2014 at 14:29:12 UTC, ponce wrote:
On Tuesday, 25 November 2014 at 01:12:03 UTC, Walter Bright
wrote:
On 11/24/2014 4:51 PM, Brian Schott wrote:
On Tuesday, 25 November 2014 at 00:37:00 UTC, Walter Bright
wrote:
Anyone know anything about this?
https://www.reddit.com/r/programming/comments/2n9gfb/d_is_for_data_science/cmbssac
You are posting to page 16 of the third iteration of a single
review.
I know, and the reddit comment refers to this.
This discussion is indeed most unsettling to read. Third review
of a much-needed module in the ecosystem, and I remember of
previous attempts at logging, each time taken down because it
does not satisfy the whims of top-tier D developers that would
have done it differently (and of course "better").
Things in phobos just have to sit, we already carry around too
many crap modules (signals, XML, curl).
What is accepted or not in Phobos no longer interest me. I can
rely on interesting modules through DUB which has versionned
dependencies, while Phobos has not.
That's a good thing because a package system can cover different
needs with much more variety.
Better XML parsers/JSON parsers/serialization/argument parsers
exist outside of Phobos currently, and in my opinion maybe they
didn't belong there in the first place.
I partly agree with this, having certain things covered by 3-rd
party libraries allows for faster iteration. Something shpuld
only become a Phobos module if there can be definite design which
is paired with a very good implementation.
