Phobos is now on dsource

[Peter C. Chapin]

Robert Fraser wrote:

> IMHO, the bigger the standard library, the better in most cases.
> Standard library code is well-reviewed and tested, so you can generally
> count on it more than 3rd party libraries, open source or not. Arguably
> more importantly, having a standard way of doing things makes code more
> consistent, reducing incompatibilities and portability issues. Further,
> if everyone knows the standard library (or a piece of it), a new
> developer can join the team and be instantly familiar with how to craft
> their code, and what the existing code does, without reading extensive
> documentation.

These arguments are undeniable, but taken to the extreme there are
problems. First, when specifying a standard library one runs the risk of
making a mistake and standardizing a poor design. Then everyone is stuck
with the error "forever." With a large library the probability of this
happening is greater. Then, of course specialized applications need
specialized methods. Thus attempting to put everything in the world into
a standard library results in lots of things that only a few people
really want to use. This just bulks up the standard for no particular
reason and makes life needlessly difficult for implementors (resulting
in fewer implementations that also have lower quality than would
otherwise be the case). Finally, standardization tends to inhibit
innovation; new library ideas might be left unexplored if the standard
has already claimed too much territory.

All that said, the trend today is for large standard libraries and
experience shows that they are helpful. However, I believe there is a
limit. It is not necessarily the case that bigger is better.

Peter