A suggestion to D community

[Sean Kelly]

Chris R. Miller wrote:
> Graham St Jack wrote:
>>> Yes, it is. But I think the most important is that the Tango group and
>>> Phobos cooperate about the core. Because if the third one do this things
>>> would be very hard. Because of Phobos is in developing and Tango is in
>>> developing too. So if we seperate the core from Phobos and Tango, and
>>> then Phobos and Tango is based on the Core, then they can working
>>> together. This will be a great success in the D community.
>>
>> I absolutely agree. Having a single core is essential. 
> 
> And this would give the opportunity to improve the core.  For example, 
> what about pluggable garbage collectors?  So you could change the GC 
> type, perhaps not at runtime, but at least have more say into the GC 
> technique used.  It might also give more people a chance to work on GC 
> technique if it were an easy plugin architecture.  I know I've felt the 
> wanderlust to try my hand at GC programming.

Already done in the Tango runtime.  Pluggable at link-time, but I can't 
envision a reason to have dynamically pluggable GCs.

> Moving onward, that would also allow us to take parts of Phobos and 
> Tango that coincide and put them into the new core, consolidating the 
> implementations into one location, perhaps unifying the libraries in the 
> distant future and ending the "Tango vs. Phobos" """"Discussions"""" 
> once and for all?  I am unsure, but it's a possibility to consider.

Yup.


Sean