D : Not for me anymore

[Bruno Medeiros]

Sean Kelly wrote:
> Lionello Lunesu wrote:
>> "Walter Bright" <newshound at digitalmars.com> wrote in message 
>> news:eh0hgs$q8h$1 at digitaldaemon.com...
>>
>>> I'm happy to merge things in, but am reluctant to do so without 
>>> reviewing the diffs line by line.
>>
>> That's what we have now. I think it's time for you to let go of Phobos. 
> 
> It's a bit more complicated than that, since Phobos includes a bunch of 
> compiler runtime code used by DMD.  This is also why GDC has a separate 
> GPhobos where the only substantive difference is this runtime code.
> 
>> There can't be a community lead standard library from which you take 
>> patches to include into DMD's distribution.
> 
> Sure there can.
> 
>  > We'd end up with another Ares.
> 
> I think Ares isn't used widely for two (or perhaps three) reasons:
> 
> * Visibility
> * Features
> * Endorsement (maybe)
> 

Speaking of Ares, there is something I've wanted to have clarified, 
which is apropos to this discussion:
My issue with Ares, is actually one of objective/purpose. The goal of 
Ares is stated to be an alternative to Phobos, but my question is how 
much of an alternative?
Is it meant as a general, encompassing alternative to Phobos, targeted 
to the general (D) programmer populace, or is it a specific alternative, 
where it aims to deal with some issues you (and some more coders) have 
with Phobos, but not go further than that? Because a standard lib is a 
wide and ranged collection of code, and all modules and aspects of it 
need to be well-considered.
I don't think I'm being too clear with my point here, so I'll take a 
look at Ares and try to give a more concrete example.

-- 
Bruno Medeiros - MSc in CS/E student
http://www.prowiki.org/wiki4d/wiki.cgi?BrunoMedeiros#D