Vision for the first semester of 2016

[Laeeth Isharc via Digitalmars-d-announce]

On Wednesday, 27 January 2016 at 09:15:27 UTC, Ola Fosheim 
Grøstad wrote:
> On Wednesday, 27 January 2016 at 06:17:44 UTC, Laeeth Isharc 
> wrote:
>> On Tuesday, 26 January 2016 at 22:48:23 UTC, Ola Fosheim 
>> Grøstad wrote:
>
>>> I am not sure if that is the right motivation. Sounds like 
>>> recipe for bloat. Good libraries evolve from being used in 
>>> real applications. Many applications.
>>
>> sayeth a low-level guy (if I understand correctly), which will 
>> certainly create a distinct perspective about what you would 
>> like to see in the standard library, and yet this may not be 
>> the right thing for the language as a whole.
>
> I am both low-level and high level, but D's primary advantage 
> is that it allows low level programming.

Surely, that is C's primary advantage!  The whole point of D is 
that it doesn't just have one primary advantage, and that is why 
the front page no longer describes it is as a systems language, 
even though it's approaching suitable as such.

>> fwiw, people that do use D on a serious scale have remarked 
>> that the richness of the standard library (even as it stands 
>> today) was a major advantage - in bioinformatics, at a London 
>> hedge fund, and I think AdRoll.
>
> Do you consider Angular to be low level? It was used in 100s if 
> not 1000s of applications, but was considered inadequate and 
> scrapped in favour of Angular2. This is the typical pattern for 
> libraries and frameworks.

I really don't see how this relates to the point at hand.  You 
seemed to suggest that the standard library should be small, and 
I pointed out that many serious users in industries that are 
likely to be key markets for D do say that they find what's 
provided in the standard library to be quite appealing.  Nothing 
lasts forever, and all is change - that's something I agree with. 
  But it doesn't seem to have much bearing on the decision about 
what to put in the standard library.  Your suggestions that 
because some cloud environments don't have a conventional file 
system, D perhaps shouldn't even have this in the standard 
library really seemed to me to be a reductio ad absurdum of your 
own argument.  Of course there will be lots there that one 
doesn't need and can't use.  But over time things that were once 
cutting edge become bog standard, and it makes sense to have 
coherence and convenience rather than to have to search out the 
best library for the purpose each time.