Hmm. I kind of like the idea, but not really. I think it has a fundamental flaw: centralization.
You see, the StdLib can be commanded by a central authority (the core team) and hear the needs of the general community (through swift-evolution and such) because, among other things, it’s small. The StdLib solves common and well-understood problems. Most of the solutions it provides are optimal for all use cases. This is fundamentally different from a non-StdLib. If I understood your idea correctly, it would be the complement of StdLib; it will be big and it will attend problems that are not well-understood or whose solutions have many differrying approaches depending on the users’ neccessities (think Geometry). Therefore, a correct and complete approach would inevitably have to: - Know the needs of all the relevant user groups and balance their priorities. - Contain all the important and complementary solutions. This is very hard to achieve in a centralized system. Not impossible, but very resource-intensive. You can achieve something similar by letting the community grow and by encouraging a good environment. People will the build the tools they need, and the important voices will index the tools people use the most. That makes them good, as well as easily findable. It’s not perfect either, but it’s more efficient in my opinion. — Félix Fischer
_______________________________________________ swift-evolution mailing list swift-evolution@swift.org https://lists.swift.org/mailman/listinfo/swift-evolution
