Phobos 2

[Brad Anderson via Digitalmars-d]

On Friday, 2 June 2017 at 09:14:14 UTC, qznc wrote:
> Frankly, I do not see the need for Phobos2. If you want to 
> build alternative packages, just go ahead and publish them via 
> dub like Mir, for example. You can even make a meta package, if 
> you find yourself using the same group of packages all the 
> time. Still, why would you call that meta package "Phobos2"? It 
> only confuses people.
>
> If you want to rewrite parts of the standard library, build the 
> alternatives first and then we can adopt them piecewise.

Makes sense. I've said in the past that the standard library 
should be smaller now that we have Dub. The standard library 
should serve as a common framework that lets libraries 
interoperate easier.

If an effort was undertaken it should probably not be called 
Phobos2 until such time (if ever) that it becomes Phobos2 by 
community vote and Walter and Andrei approval.

C++'s Boost has a problem where libraries people are working on 
get called Boost Whatever in anticipation of being proposed for 
Boost and many of them never even make it to the review stage so 
it becomes confusing about what is and isn't in Boost. It's also 
confusing because competing libraries will be proposed and a 
non-Boost library is already taking Boost ObviousName so they 
have to come up with some weird name instead.

> Nevertheless, I would love to read a detailed analysis of 
> Phobos and what should be improved. Please, write a blog post 
> somewhere. However, do not mention "Phobos2".

This is the heart of why I made the post. I want to read what 
people want myself.

> D has a painful history with two competing standard libraries. 
> If you seriously propose this path, I hope Andrei and Walter 
> will publicly and vehemently oppose it. Otherwise that ghost 
> from the past becomes a PR disaster for D.

Not very seriously. I'm more interested in the discussion than 
anything. Like I said, I don't think this will go anywhere.

I do want to say that I don't think the Phobos/Tango situation is 
relevant. Those were two competing, mutually exclusive standard 
libraries. That problem has long since been resolved with people 
using Tango and Phobos together in their D2 programs just fine. I 
understand why anyone would be weary at the idea though.