Multiple "Standard" Libraries for D?

[Norbert Nemec]

I am less worried about the size than about the quality.

Replacing any part of the standard library is an act similar to changing 
the language definition, so including new modules into the library 
should be done with as much care as including new features into the 
language.

Apart from that, however, I like the "batteries-included" approach of 
e.g. Python. Crypto, math, web services and many other parts are of 
sufficient general interest to be part of the standard library. However, 
if the quality of any module is questionable, it should rather be left 
out until it is up to shape.

A CPAN-like repository with easy-to-retrieve additional modules is 
certainly interesting as well, but it does not replace an extensive 
standard library that you can rely on to be there whenever you write D code.

Greetings,
Norbert



On 27/04/10 00:30, sybrandy wrote:
> I know some people have been talking about adding various
> classes/libraries that they are working on to Phobos, however there's a
> good possibility that we make the standard library too large. So, I'd
> like to propose that instead of one huge standard library, there be
> several libraries developed for different uses.
>
> For example, Phobos could contain everything that one would need to
> build other libraries easily. E.g. pretty much everything it has now.
> Another library could be a math library containing everything for large
> number, matrix arithmetic, statistics, etc. Another could be crypto
> library.
>
> Essentially, what I'm looking at is a standardized set of libraries, but
> having them broken out so that when someone downloads the D compiler,
> they get a minimal set vs. everything. Also, by having everything
> maintained in the same spot, it would hopefully make it easy for people
> to find and download the libraries they need. Think of something like
> Perl's CPAN.
>
> Anyway, just a thought.
>
> Casey