"dave eveloper" <[email protected]> wrote in message news:[email protected]... > Ezneh Wrote: > >> So, it is not better to find a compromise between these libraries ? >> Why they have to be "two" libraries rather than one which was designed by >> larsivi, Walter Bright and Andrei Alexandrescu ? > > I haven't seen larsivi around lately. Is it possible that there's a > communication problem? Perhaps a personality mismatch? > > Because of silly symbol names like 'retro' I think there's more reason for > someone to not like Phobos. Bearophile also always reminds us that a > proper closure inlining support would make collection algorithms as fast > as the ugly string template hack Phobos. That way you wouldn't have hard > coded parameter symbols like a and b. >
Dictionary.com Unabridged, Based on the Random House Dictionary: retro- a prefix occurring in loanwords from Latin meaning backward (retrogress); on this model, used in the formation of compound words (retrorocket). So can we stop this "retro is a bad name" nonsense now? > Wasn't Tango an object oriented hardcore framework for large applications, > and Phobos a procedural simple stdio wrapper for smaller scripts. I think > it wouldn't be so bad if there was a "Mini-d" dialect of D that has focus > on programming in the small things and a "Mega-d" that comes with Java/C# > like massive libraries and enterprise support. One of the charters for my SemiTwist D Tools project ( www.dsource.org/projects/semitwist ) is to provide wrappers for Tango's approach for when you just need something simple. As an example, just the other day I added "readUnicodeFile" that wraps tango's File.get and UnicodeBom stuff to provide a single no-mess function to load a text file written in any UTF format and auto-convert into native-endian UTF-8, 16, or 32, as desired. (Of course, if Tango wants to adopt any of SemiTwist D Tools into itself, I'm all for it.)
