D for microservices

[Adam Wilson]

On 10/25/17 23:57, Jacob Carlborg wrote:
> On 2017-10-26 00:53, Adam Wilson wrote:
>
>> This of course makes the assumption that we clean-room our own
>> protocol implementations which I am entirely against. Better to use
>> what already exists.
>
> I'm entirely against anything that is not compatible with vibe.d ;)
>

My apologies, something rather the other direction. Instead of forcing 
compat with vibe.d, going to vibe.d and say: "here is our standard 
event-loop, it has everything you need, you'll need to use it for all 
the other goodness to work". I know others can make good arguments about 
why the vibe event-loop is insufficient, and I'll let them make them. 
(Something about not supporting GUI loops, paging Mr. Cattermole). If 
that is really the case I don't see how being entirely vibe.d compatible 
and meeting the universal standard requirements of Phobos is possible.

There would need to be a requirements gathering phase so that the 
community as a whole can bring their use-cases before we dove into code.

>> I actually don't think the slow updates are huge problem as these DB
>> interface libraries are pretty slow to change themselves. For example,
>> ADO.NET didn't change significantly from it's 1.0 release until the
>> arrival of Async/Await in .NET 4.5, which was 10 years later. The
>> biggest addition prior to Async was TVP support and that was tiny
>> comparatively and came in 2005.
>>
>> The libpq5 interface has barely changed in years. I can't speak to
>> MySQL but IIRC it hasn't changed much either, at least not in a way
>> that would effect the abstraction layer.
>
> I'm more concerned that I don't think we'll manage to implement a
> complete API and 100% bug free at the first try.
>

Depends on how one defines first try. Phobos as a pretty solid process 
for making sure these things are reasonably bug free. And near as I can 
tell, Phobos is pretty good about accepting bug fixes.

-- 
Adam Wilson
IRC: LightBender
import quiet.dlang.dev;