I have a plan.. I really DO

[Ecstatic Coder]

On Monday, 2 July 2018 at 05:20:51 UTC, Joakim wrote:
> On Sunday, 1 July 2018 at 15:40:20 UTC, Ecstatic Coder wrote:
>> On Sunday, 1 July 2018 at 14:01:11 UTC, Jonathan M Davis wrote:
>>> On Sunday, July 01, 2018 13:37:32 Ecstatic Coder via 
>>> Digitalmars-d-announce wrote:
>>>> On Sunday, 1 July 2018 at 12:43:53 UTC, Johannes Loher wrote:
>>>> > Am 01.07.2018 um 14:12 schrieb Ecstatic Coder:
>>>> >> Add a 10-liner "Hello World" web server example on the 
>>>> >> main page and that's it.
>>>> >
>>>> > There already is one in the examples:
>>>> >
>>>> > #!/usr/bin/env dub
>>>> > /+ dub.sdl:
>>>> > name "hello_vibed"
>>>> > dependency "vibe-d" version="~>0.8.0"
>>>> > +/
>>>> > void main()
>>>> > {
>>>> >
>>>> >     import vibe.d;
>>>> >     listenHTTP(":8080", (req, res) {
>>>> >
>>>> >         res.writeBody("Hello, World: " ~ req.path);
>>>> >
>>>> >     });
>>>> >     runApplication();
>>>> >
>>>> > }
>>>>
>>>> Yeah I know, guess who asked for it...
>>>>
>>>> But the last step, which is including such functionality 
>>>> into the standard library , will never happen, because 
>>>> nobody here seems to see the point of doing this.
>>>>
>>>> I guess those who made that for Go and Crystal probably did 
>>>> it wrong.
>>>>
>>>> What a mistake they did, and they don't even know they make 
>>>> a mistake, silly them... ;)
>>>
>>> What should and shouldn't go in the standard library for a 
>>> language is something that's up for a lot of debate and is 
>>> likely to often be a point of contention. There is no clear 
>>> right or wrong here. Languages that have had very sparse 
>>> standard libraries have done quite well, and languages that 
>>> have had kitchen sink libraries have done quite well. There 
>>> are pros and cons to both approaches.
>>>
>>> - Jonathan M Davis
>>
>> I agree.
>>
>> But here I'm just talking of the "public image" of the 
>> language.
>>
>> Languages which integrates HTTP-related components in their 
>> standard library, and advertize on that (like Crystal for 
>> instance), obviously apply a different "marketing" strategy 
>> than languages which have chosen not to do so.
>>
>> That's all I say...
>
> Two points:
>
> - Andrei pushed to include vibe.d but it didn't happen.
>
> "There's no web services framework (by this time many folks 
> know of D, but of those a shockingly small fraction has even 
> heard of vibe.d). I have strongly argued with Sönke to bundle 
> vibe.d with dmd over one year ago, and also in this forum. 
> There wasn't enough interest."
> https://forum.dlang.org/post/nipb14$ldb$1@digitalmars.com
>
> - As you acknowledge, integration has drawbacks too. I thought 
> this was an interesting recent article about how it has now 
> hobbled one of the biggest tech companies in the world:
>
> https://stratechery.com/2018/intel-and-the-danger-of-integration/
>
> I don't think the web matters enough these days that it is 
> worth bundling, which is why a webassembly port is also not 
> worth it for most:
>
> https://www.mobiloud.com/blog/mobile-apps-vs-the-mobile-web/

Instead of trying to integrate vibe.d, which I don't think would 
be a good idea, personally I'd rather suggest taking the 
opportunity to design the interface of those standard 
HTTP-related components from scratch (listener server, fibers, 
channels, etc), independently from vibe.d and with a minimalistic 
mindset, by taking inspiration mainly from Go, along with Crystal 
and vibe.d, even if the implementation will obviously end up 
being very similar to the one of vibe.d.