STEP UP PHOBOS DEVELOPMENT 10 FOLD

[Chad J]

Lionello Lunesu wrote:
> I totally agree!
> 
>> A Best Practice would be to post one's changes on the newsgroup for 
>> peer review. And if well received, only then send them per e-mail to 
>> Walter.
> 
> 
> ...and that's the tricky part. There's no guarantee that the fix/add-on 
> will make it into Phobos. Not because it might not be up to some 
> standard, but because it's likely to be overseen. A newsgroup for Phobos 
> might be a way of fixing this.
> 
> There's another problem. I don't "get" Phobos. If there's a thought 
> behind it, I don't get it. I read the "philosophy" on the D site, and 
> agree with it, but Phobos still looks like a bunch of random algorithms 
> and patterns. For this reason, I, for one, would much rather submit 
> patches to Ares than to Phobos.
> 
> I've already posted my opinion on the whole "standard library" issue: 
> ideally I'd like to remake the .NET framework in D. Or perhaps a 
> transparent way of using it, as was posted before. (I've been working on 
> a tool that uses .NET reflection to dump the .NET classes and interface 
> in .d files, including xml-doc in DDOC format.)
> 
> Anyway, I have no doubt Phobos could grow to be a good standard library.
> 
> L.

I'm willing to help with this stuff, but it's discouraging when there 
are 2 competing libraries (Ares and Phobos).  It feels like there is a 
50% chance my efforts would be wasted.  I really wish we could merge the 
good things about both of them, such as going with Ares and then start 
merging Phobos modules into it, refactoring them as needed.