A betterC modular standard library?

[lurker via Digitalmars-d]

On Monday, 19 December 2016 at 05:59:07 UTC, Ilya Yaroshenko 
wrote:
> On Monday, 19 December 2016 at 01:52:21 UTC, Andrei 
> Alexandrescu wrote:
>> On 12/18/16 7:31 PM, Seb wrote:
>>> tl:dr: Phobos is very bloated.
>>
>> How does the D standard library compare in size with some 
>> other languages (C++, Rust, Go, Java, Python)?
>
> C++ and Rust are the best from this list in terms of low level 
> programming. They have smaller libraries comparing with D.
>
> Go, Java, Python --- If I need a language like them I will you 
> them, not D.
>
> Go - awesome GC, commercially supported, easy to write your own 
> libs
> Java - awesome GC, commercially supported, Scala(!!!)
> Python - awesome scripting, commercially supported
>
> D - ??? awesome what ? What do we have better then Scala?
>
> Performance? NO.
> BRandomAccessRanges makes our performance less then C/C++.
>
> Clean and clever API in standard library? NO.
> We are placing our Range API whenever possible including RNGs. 
> We have not a language standard for I/O. Half of Phobos is 
> outdated to language standards.
>
> Best generics? NO.
> Scala is more powerful.
>
> ----------
> What do we have awesome? Where D is the best?
> ----------
> D is awesome for low-level system libraries in betterC mode.
> (and small text processing routines)
> This will make D great in other fields.
> ----------
>
>>> Let's do something about it!
>>
>> I've said this several times, and it bears repeating. We want 
>> to make D entirely pay-as-you go, and offer full support to 
>> anyone working on it. The best "something" anyone can do about 
>> it is do good engineering work in the D mainline.
>
> National D Foundation Party.
>
>> That will automatically benefit all users of the D language, 
>> instead of balkanizing the community.
>
> ...
>
>> Granted, the lure of the clean slate is strong, and more care 
>> is needed to mind backwards compatibility, but that's where 
>> the real impact is.
>>
>>
>> Andrei
>
> How Mir projects breaks backward compatibility ?
>
> How proposed direction breaks backward compatibility?
>
> Lets use other prefix for the new libraries. Mir uses `mir.` 
> And allow Phobos to be a sandbox for C++ as it is now.
>
> Ilya

<delurk>
Thats why I asked for moderation in forums.
<lurk>