Polishing D - suggestions and comments

[Dan]

Kris Wrote:

> 
> "Jarrod" <qwerty at ytre.wq> wrote in message 
> news:fnfa1t$1o1g$2 at digitalmars.com...
> 
> > What bugs me overall is not the rift between features on either side, but
> > rather the incompatibility issues. Unless there is a merge, there will be
> > two standards..
> 
> Jarrod:
> 
> In what manner does Tangobos not provide the "merge" you describe?  It 
> permits you to import, compile and link both phobos and Tango modules 
> without fuss (which is what people had asked for). If you have a different 
> idea of what that "merge" should instead be, would you please clarify?

The thing they're asking for is a single semantically coherent library.

Essentially, take tangobos, make it "the" library, and then mix and match redundant parts to get the best of each.

I'm a purist, so I dread the day that D's entire library infrastructure is based on classes.  You can't tell me that the performance hit from classes is trivial.

I see the best case being:

1) Establish a central repository of algorithms, such that anyone can submit algorithms to the repository.

- Committed algorithms would need to solve some problem domain, and would not be trivially implemented with one-liners or other items in the library.

- Each algorithm could be versioned separately, and require review and approval before being committed.

- People ought to be able to sync their library to the standard repository.  Perhaps by offering them read-only SVN access.  This would let people revert to some old version of the standard library used to compile a program 5 years, 3 months and a day ago.