Expanding Phobos from a flat hierachy

Marco Leise Marco.Leise at gmx.de
Wed Feb 6 20:46:16 PST 2013


Am Wed, 06 Feb 2013 13:02:29 +0100
schrieb Robert <jfanatiker at gmx.at>:

> On Wed, 2013-02-06 at 08:56 +0100, Don wrote:
> > Eg, are there entire top-level branches which are obsolete? How 
> > many stupid names are there (eg, "std.algorithm2") which were 
> 
> Well in order to avoid such "stupid" names, I think it would be a good
> idea to keep the standard library small. Include only the things that
> are important to be "standard" in order to ensure interoperability
> between libraries.

I think the opposite. When we think about more concepts in
Phobos, like gui, serialization, cryptography and so on, we
will be able to create the right amount of hierarchy with
distinguishable names. I'm in favor of a big batteries
included library.

> The benefits:
> - The base installation stays small, which might be important for
>   everything that is not a PC.

That's why we have modules and minimize dependencies between
them. Years ago when Java was introduced to mobile phones the
big library was no problem, because non-essential parts could
be removed.

-- 
Marco



More information about the Digitalmars-d mailing list