DIP11: Automatic downloading of libraries

[Jacob Carlborg]

On 2011-06-21 23:27, Byakkun wrote:
> On Tue, 21 Jun 2011 21:01:07 +0300, Jacob Carlborg <doob at me.com> wrote:
>
>> On 2011-06-21 19:36, Jonathan M Davis wrote:
>>> On 2011-06-21 10:17, Jacob Carlborg wrote:
>>>> Maybe I was a bit too harsh saying that std.benchmark maybe wasn't
>>>> worth
>>>> adding. On the other hand isn't this what the review process is about
>>>> (or maybe this is before the review process)? We can't include
>>>> EVERYTHING in Phobos or it will become like the Java/C# standard
>>>> library, I assume we don't want that.
>>>
>>> Why not? Granted, we want quality code, and we only have so many people
>>> working on Phobos and only so many people to help vet code, but
>>> assuming that
>>> it can be written at the appropriate level of quality and that the
>>> functionality is generally useful, I don't see why we wouldn't want a
>>> large
>>> standard library like Java and C# have. Given our level of manpower,
>>> I don't
>>> expect that we'll ever have a standard library that large, but I
>>> don't see why
>>> having a large standard library would be a bad thing as long as it's
>>> of high
>>> quality and its functionality is generally useful.
>>>
>>> - Jonathan M Davis
>>
>> I just got that impression. That we want a relative small standard
>> library and have other libraries available as well.
>>
>
> I see only one perspective from which you would like to not have
> standard libs as large as C# an Java provided the quality of the code is
> good and that is the fact that you can't realistically hope to have the
> IDEs they have which integrate facilities to access the documentation very
> easily or one can just to rely on auto-completion (which also gives Java
> and C# the luxury to use very very explicit and strait forward naming).
> This is worthy of consideration for phobos (the fact
> that it doesn't come bundled with an IDE like C#). Otherwise it is good
> to have as much std as possible and useful. My only concern (excepting
> bugs and holes in Phobos) is that the packages are not grouped at all
> and that increases the time (at least for a noob) it take to search
> through the documentation and the code. Also there is some ambiguity to
> regarding the place of some functionality like std.array and std.string
> (I fond myself surprised in other areas but I can't remember right now)
> which I imagine it could be fixed simply by intelligently using D module
> system. But maybe there are reasons for doing it this way which I don't
> get.

Again, I'm NOT saying I don't want standard library like Java/C#.

-- 
/Jacob Carlborg