On Tuesday, September 06, 2011 19:29:13 Josh Simmons wrote: > On Tue, Sep 6, 2011 at 7:09 PM, Jonathan M Davis <[email protected]> wrote: > > Other major languages (such as Java and C#) have large standard > > libraries and have done quite well with them. In fact, I believe that > > the large size of their standard libraries is generally seen as major > > advantage of those languages. > > > > No, we can't have everything in the standard library. No, an XML parser > > in the standard library likely won't meet everyone's needs. However, > > having a large standard library can be of great benefit to the users of > > the language even if it doesn't solve every problem that they could > > possibly have. The question isn't really whether we should add stuff > > like XML parsing to Phobos. The question is what is the best general > > implementation for a such a module and whether we can get an > > implementation of high enough quality to be able to go in the standard > > library. It's a question of time, man power, and quality. > > > > Obviously, Phobos is not going to explode in size overnight, but it _is_ > > going to grow in size, and eventually it should be fairly large. We > > already have several useful additions in the review queue which will > > likely make it into Phobos in one form or another over the next few > > months. > > > > - Jonathan M Davis > > Other languages like C# and Java have large enterprise outfits backing > their massive standard libraries too. > > I just think the effort is better spent creating a solid language and > encouraging third party libraries through better tools.
For the most part, the folks working on Phobos are not the same folks who work on dmd. There's some overlap, but they're definitely not the same people. So, the fact that people are working on the standard library does _nothing_ to slow the language down. If anything, it helps, because it provides a standard code base which uses (and therefore tests) the various features of the language. Third party libraries are great, but I don't see why you would ever want to discourage development of a language's standard library in favor of third party libraries. In some cases, modules in the standard library have originated in third party libraries anyway. No, Phobos is not likely to ever rival C# or Java for volume of code. But that doesn't mean that Phobos shouldn't try and be as large is it can be while still maintaining high quality. - Jonathan M Davis
