On 10/7/10 9:37 CDT, dsimcha wrote:
== Quote from crap ([email protected])'s article
the horrible template abusing bloat library
I'm sorry, but this is what I **like** about Phobos. I really hate nominative
typing and traditional Java/C++-style OO for most things. It's verbose,
requires
too much design to be set in stone upfront, and is not all that flexible. In my
own programs I tend to only use it when I really need flexibility at runtime,
not
just at design/development or compile time, which is a minority of cases.
Furthermore, for most things a few megabytes of executable size bloat is **not a
practical issue**. For the types of programs I tend to write at least, the disk
and memory space the code takes up (100s of KB to a few MB) is negligible
compared
to the size of the data the at the code operates on (100s of MB).
One other thing is that it's very easy to build traditional designs on
top of highly configurable ones (like Phobos tries to offer), whereas
the reverse is not possible (or at least not efficiently).
I noticed that some tend to think that if they see Phobos going the
extra length to define a really general, flexible, and adaptive
algorithm or structure, they're forced to write application code all the
same. If we align our ducks right, Phobos should be a compelling
offering to a large range of designs.
Andrei
