On Sunday, 1 February 2015 at 14:40:17 UTC, Zach the Mystic wrote:
Yes, we're basically talking about the two categories I mentioned to begin with. You're focusing on those libraries which can be pre-approved as worthy of phobos. The way I figure it, only Andrei and Walter can ultimately give pre-approval for such libraries. But I think the second kind I mentioned -- high-quality libraries which aren't suited for phobos -- also need official, or at least prominent, recognition. It's really important for people not to have to investigate every program listed on code.lang.org in order to find high-quality existing code. I would even argue that such recognition is more important than the library you're proposing here (which already seems to exist with `std.experimental`). Meeting the pre-approval standards for phobos is a very high bar, and it certainly won't be the majority of high-quality libraries.
I tend to agree with this. I am not sure how another library with phobos level requirements would actually help. To me is seems like std.experimental, just with a different name.
The problems with code.dlang.org seem to be a more important thing to focus on. One thing that is a downside of code.dlang.org is that it is hard to tell which libraries are good, which are bad, and it is hard to find what does what.
One thing that would definitely help with the situation is a better code.dlang.org site with ratings, tags, categories, and comments. Also it would be great to advertise some of the better packages by putting them on a more prominent display in something like a "featured" section.
I really wish I knew website design, then I could help with some of this stuff rather than just talking about it.
