Using glog's design for Phobos?

[dsimcha]

== Quote from Walter Bright (newshound2 at digitalmars.com)'s article
> Andrei Alexandrescu wrote:
> > At my workplace we're using Google's logging library glog
> > (http://google-glog.googlecode.com/svn/trunk/doc/glog.html), and the
> > more I use it, the more I like it. It's simple, to the point, and
> > effective.
> >
> > I was thinking it would be great to adapt a similar design into Phobos.
> > There will be differences such as use of regular argument lists instead
> > of << etc., but the spirit will be similar. What do you think?
> Ok, I'm going to get flamed for this, but,
>      I don't get it
> I do logging all the time. It's usually customized to the particular problem I'm
> trying to solve, so it involves uncommenting the right printf's and then running
> it. Voila. Done.
> The logging libraries I've seen usually required more time spent installing the
> package, getting it to compile, reading the documentation, finding out it
> doesn't work, rereading the documentation, etc., etc., than just putting in a
> #@$%^ printf, and Bang, it works, cut & print.
> Even worse, the logging libraries are loaded with a grab bag of trivial features
> to try and puff it up into looking impressive. They always seemed to me to be a
> solution in search of a problem.
> Shields up! what am I missing about this?

Relax, you've got some agreement on this.  I've never looked seriously at logging
libraries simply because I can't figure out what could possibly be better than
just using std.stdio.  Of course, I'm a new school programmer, so I use writeln(),
not printf().