On Sunday, 1 February 2015 at 22:54:51 UTC, Piotrek wrote:
On Sunday, 1 February 2015 at 21:54:13 UTC, Dicebot wrote:
Just few quick questions:
Hi
1) what would it give over std.experimental ?
- draft modules will be more flexible for changes than in the
ones in standard library
As per latest agreement everything in std.experimental is
considered subject to any change so is perfectly flexible.
- new drafting modules won't disturb usual users of the
standard library
That statements needs some hard data that current situation is
disturbing to be considered as a rationale.
IMO, std.experimental is not for the drafting stage of the SW
development.
Depends on your definition of "draft". Anything that is good
enough to be actually used in real app is good enough for
std.experimental - and anything less is of no use to end user
anyway.
2) what would it give over code.dlang.org ?
- community driven as opposed to individual driven
- out of the box readiness
- minimal fragmentation and controversy
code.dlang.org is actually much more community driven because it
is naturally decentralized. Controversy is inevitable anyway
(hello std.json).
Fragmentation is a thing though - but I yet to be convinced that
is a bad thing that needs to be fixed.
3) what problems are you trying to solve and why do you think
this is suitable solution?
Adding new modules (replacing the deprecated ones) in more
robust and quicker manner.
It is as quick as it can be for standard library - and
code.dlang.org takes care of everything else. Any library that
risks quick removal of deprecated modules / API is not acceptable
for "standard" stamp.
So far this does not seem a proposal that pulls own weight to me.
