Segregating the standard library

[Anders F Björklund]

Benji Smith wrote:

> Anyhow...
> 
> If the D standard library looks like a re-vamped C library, I'll be 
> disappointed.

Me too, considering that it already *includes* the standard C library...
i.e. the functions in "std" needs to offer something extra over those
in "std.c", or one could just as well stick with the C library stuff ?

> But if it looks like Java, the C++ crowd will be annoyed.

If the stdlib looks like Java with a mandatory String class and such,
I think both the C and D crowds will be annoyed too ? We need *both*
a low-level standard library and a high-level standard library for D...

> At the same time, the standard library can't be a weird Frankenstein 
> amalgamation of Java-style code and C-style code. Then no one would be 
> happy.
> 
> I really think the D standard library will be very small and minimal, 
> providing some humble set of necessary core functionality.

Me too, I think it should offer a good base and then get out of the way.
Decoupling the compiler runtime and the std library is a good thing too.
And I would rather see the "Java-style" library done outside of DMD/GDC.

I think it would be great if you could use D all these different ways;
as a better and improved C with assembler, as a simpler alternative to 
C++, as a native alternative to Java/C#. All contained in one language ?

--anders