Polishing D - suggestions and comments
Bill Baxter
dnewsgroup at billbaxter.com
Sat Jan 26 12:32:04 PST 2008
Leandro Lucarella wrote:
> Robert Fraser, el 25 de enero a las 17:31 me escribiste:
>> Lars Ivar Igesund wrote:
>>> I know there are a few places in Tango where an additional line may be
>>> needed (and many where you'll need quite a few less), but without exact
>>> examples of what people think is a problem, it is hard to make qualified
>>> decisions on where to make improvements.
>> Not to be negative, but I think no matter how many tests/examples/whatever show that Tango is comparable or better in speed and efficiency to Phobos, the
>> stigma of a feature-rich, strongly abstracted/modular standard library reminds of Java and .NET . I think the fear is less based on logic and more based on
>> association between a modular standard library and VM-based languages.
>
> I second that. Phobos is closer to C/C++ stdlib, Tango to Java/.NET.
> I think it would be great to have 2 "compatible" standard libraries. One
> minimalist for embeded and such (phobos) and one for "big" (or not that
> big) desktop applications (tango). Of course both should be compatible and
> it had more sense if the "big" library were a super-set of the "small"
> one.
However, when it comes to the low-level parts of the library (gc,
threading, etc), I don't really see anyone arguing. Tango's seems to be
better. It seems like those improvements should just be rolled back
into Phobos. Then Tango could go back to being a regular library that
doesn't require you to "get religion" first.
--bb
More information about the Digitalmars-d
mailing list