D growing pains (was Re: The Demise of Dynamic Arrays?!)

[Don]

Lars T. Kyllingstad wrote:
> Kevin Bealer wrote:
>> Walter Bright Wrote:
>>
>>> Kevin Bealer wrote:
>>>> To smooth this out, it would help to have the best practices for
>>>> doing common things in D (e.g. serialization, logging) somewhat
>>>> documented for the consumption of non-experts.  I wonder what a good
>>>> way of doing this is?
>>> It's really impossible to predict what the best practices would be. 
>>> Only time and usage will tell. The "best practices" for both C and 
>>> C++ have evolved significantly over time.
>>
>> I think D2 is so different from D (and in some important ways, from 
>> everything out there) that a new usage style would have needed to be 
>> created even if D was already the lingua franca.
>>
>> The question that I find myself thinking is -- is chaos better or is 
>> it better to try to establish a particular style of programming 
>> (however simply or poorly) in the original books and resources that a 
>> programmer will find upon discovering D?
>>
>> Chaos has its appeal of course, but others would say that any initial 
>> style that will stick is better than no style.  In other words, that 
>> you cannot evolve until you cohere.  It's hard to choose...  On the 
>> other hand I suppose Phobos is consistent enough with itself that if 
>> people follow that they will have a launch point.
> 
> If naming guidelines are a part of the "coding style" you mention, then 
> Phobos isn't very consistent. I think this needs to be fixed before TDPL 
> comes out, even though the renaming will cause major breakage. This is 
> the last chance to get it right.

TDPL hardly mentions Phobos. There is a lot more time for getting Phobos 
right. Phobos will get a major overhaul early next year.