Early review of std.logger

[Andrei Alexandrescu]

On 10/15/13 12:52 AM, Robert Schadek wrote:
> On 10/15/2013 04:06 AM, Eric Anderton wrote:
>> On Monday, 14 October 2013 at 11:39:52 UTC, Dicebot wrote:
>>> Lets unleash the forces of constructive destruction.
>>
>> So, not to be too heavy-handed with criticism on this library, but I
>> think this should come up to par with solutions like log4j, log4cpp,
>> or log4cxx, with respect to features and capabilities.  Libraries like
>> these have enjoyed a lot of very serious use, and once you have
>> something like that in your project, it's hard to not use most of what
>> they have to offer.  There's really not a lot of fluff in those
>> solutions.
> IMO these libraries are to heavy. Especially with phobos inclusion in mind.

I agree. A bunch of stuff at Facebook is heavily relying on logging for 
statistics and debugging, yet we're fine with the relatively scarce API 
of Google log. That said, I'm clearly biased because I've never used 
log4xxx.

One note - log4j, log4cxx, and log4cpp are not part of the respective 
languages' standards. That doesn't mean much (in fact it may be a 
competitive advantage to integrating log4d in std) but it is one factor 
to consider.

Eric, could you please enumerate a short list of features of log4j that 
you think would be really missed if absent?


Andrei