DMD 1.036 and 2.020 releases

[Sergey Gromov]

Thu, 23 Oct 2008 17:47:46 +0200,
Don wrote:
> Sergey Gromov wrote:
> > Wed, 22 Oct 2008 15:56:30 +0200,
> > Lars Ivar Igesund wrote:
> >> In any case, a hierarchy of the type
> >>
> >> common/
> >>   core/
> >>   sys/
> >>   stdc/
> >>
> >> should be highly considered. This would allow a namespace for functionality
> >> that is truly common, not only the runtime, but math and eventually other
> >> functionality. In addition it is naive to believe that just because
> >> druntime is meant to be a common runtime, that it will be the only runtime
> >> in the long run.
> > 
> > There is no 'truly common' functionality beyond the absolutely necessary 
> > core runtime.  The fact that Phobos and Tango share some code only means 
> > that such code is ought to be in any stand-alone, general-purpose 
> > library.  Not that it must be built-in.
> 
> ??? Don't understand.
> Are you simply saying that there's no need for standard libraries?

I can see a reason for a general-purpose library which is supplied with a 
compiler.  It's for faster setup, faster learning, and for quick-n-dirty 
utilities with less dependencies.

I can see why one would want a different general-purpose library instead 
of the default.  It's for more appealing (for that one person) library 
architecture and for different trade-offs.

I can see a reason for a specialized math library, biological, chemical 
library etc.  They're specialized.

But I cannot justify a separate library only because Phobos and Tango 
happen to use the same approach in some parts.  A library without any 
architecture, with only purpose to make Phobos and Tango dependent upon 
it, and to make users wonder where to search for a particular general-
purpose functionality.