std.experimental.logger formal review round 3

[Martin Nowak via Digitalmars-d]

On Tuesday, 25 November 2014 at 14:29:12 UTC, ponce wrote:
> On Tuesday, 25 November 2014 at 01:12:03 UTC, Walter Bright 
> wrote:
>> On 11/24/2014 4:51 PM, Brian Schott wrote:
>>> On Tuesday, 25 November 2014 at 00:37:00 UTC, Walter Bright 
>>> wrote:
>>>> Anyone know anything about this?
>>>>
>>>> https://www.reddit.com/r/programming/comments/2n9gfb/d_is_for_data_science/cmbssac
>>>>
>>>
>>> You are posting to page 16 of the third iteration of a single 
>>> review.
>>
>> I know, and the reddit comment refers to this.
>
> This discussion is indeed most unsettling to read. Third review 
> of a much-needed module in the ecosystem, and I remember of 
> previous attempts at logging, each time taken down because it 
> does not satisfy the whims of top-tier D developers that would 
> have done it differently (and of course "better").

Things in phobos just have to sit, we already carry around too 
many crap modules (signals, XML, curl).

> What is accepted or not in Phobos no longer interest me. I can 
> rely on interesting modules through DUB which has versionned 
> dependencies, while Phobos has not.

That's a good thing because a package system can cover different 
needs with much more variety.

> Better XML parsers/JSON parsers/serialization/argument parsers 
> exist outside of Phobos currently, and in my opinion maybe they 
> didn't belong there in the first place.

I partly agree with this, having certain things covered by 3-rd 
party libraries allows for faster iteration. Something shpuld 
only become a Phobos module if there can be definite design which 
is paired with a very good implementation.