std.experimental – DConf?

[Steven Schveighoffer via Digitalmars-d]

On Thu, 29 May 2014 12:44:10 -0400, Joseph Rushton Wakeling via  
Digitalmars-d <digitalmars-d at puremagic.com> wrote:

> On 29/05/14 18:22, ponce via Digitalmars-d wrote:
>> Is it really fast moving when you have to wait for compiler releases? I  
>> don't
>> think so.
>
> Fair point.  What I was really trying to say is, that if something looks  
> good from a design point of view, that getting it straight into  
> std.experimental is probably a much more effective way of getting it out  
> there and battle tested than having it on code.dlang.org, because there  
> will most likely be orders of magnitude difference in user takeup  
> between modules in each.

Yes, most definitely. e.g., there may be several serialization libraries  
in code.dlang.org. But there would only ever be one in std.experimental.  
It says "this is the one we are considering for inclusion." By definition,  
more people would use it, and consider it semi-official.

>> I also believe there is a positive correlation between "being popular on
>> code.dlang.org" and "being useful and with a promising design".
>
> Indeed.  I'm not arguing against popularity on code.dlang.org being a  
> consideration for potential std.experimental modules, I'm just arguing  
> against it being a requirement.
>

Agree completely.

-Steve