A few notes on choosing between Go and D for a quick project
Laeeth Isharc via Digitalmars-d
digitalmars-d at puremagic.com
Sun Mar 15 06:50:02 PDT 2015
On Sunday, 15 March 2015 at 10:53:21 UTC, Marc Schütz wrote:
> I hope you'll get better!
Thanks. On the mend, but it takes time...
>> 3. I have said so before (the GroupBy docs) - standard library
>> documentation is 'perfectly clear' if you have a technical
>> mindset and are used to reading formalisms, but it is
>> horrendously intimidating if not (which applies to many
>> people). We need more examples, and they should put the use
>> in context rather than just being tiny fragments - ie show how
>> to do something useful with the function (cf python docs).
>> There should also be a guide to functions writing from point
>> of what one wants to achieve. toLower in std.string, but I
>> need to go to std.ascii for doing the same thing to a
>> character. Eminently logical, but not obvious if you don't
>> know where to look.
> It seems the accessibility/discoverability of string handling
> is a common complaint. People expect certain functions to be
> available for strings, like startsWith, trim/ltrim/rtrim,
> repeat, maybe even regex matching. Now, these things are all
> available in other parts of Phobos, or easily implementable
> using components from all over the standard library, but a
> beginner won't know this, and even if, it's inconvenient.
> Maybe we should add the most common functions to `std.string`?
> Either as aliases or re-exports, or even (re)implement them
> there with the appropriate semantics if necessary. For example,
> people would expect a hypothetical `std.string.repeat` to be
> eager, whereas `std.range.repeat("hello").take(5)` is lazy.
> Some operations may also decay to ranges of `dchar`, but we'd
> want to preserve the string type.
No opinion on this myself, but aliases have a cost in terms of
confusion (what's the difference? err there is none) whereas
there may be some value in reimplementation with appropriate
semantics at some future point.
But I think the closest sticking point is not lack of order in
library organisation - just that the documents are written from
the perspective of the library writer and there is currently no
coherent, complete, and polished set of documents primarily
oriented to 'how do I accomplish this task'. I understand why
that is, but if one identifies a problem one can work away at it
slowly over time.
More information about the Digitalmars-d