• Simas <simas gmx.net> Oct 15 2007

Simas <simas gmx.net> writes:

Don Clugston Wrote:

 Daniel Keep wrote:
 Yigal Chripun wrote:
 ...
 Until we reach a merged, agreed by all one API, there is no standard
 library for D in my mind.


 "agreed by all one API"  Yeah, I don't think that's gonna happen.  Ever.
  You're asking programmers to unilaterally agree on a large, complex topic.
 
 These are the people who continually rewrite stuff because of "not
 invented here" or "don't like the capitalisation on the identifiers" or
 "because I felt like it" syndromes... :P
 
 ...

 P.S
 i'd prefer either be able to import Cout and just have two functions
 like print/println with formatting, or changing Cout to out (no upper
 case letters, and without C-style shortcut names)
 I prefer more readable java style with camel case full names rather than
 c/c++ 3 letter abbreviations like ptr instead of pointer, buf instead of
 buffer and etc.. (we all know that we read code a lot more than we write
 it, so it's better to write longerIdentifierNames which would be easier
 to read and understand later)


 See, and I prefer the terseness of C.  One thing that always made me
 want to throw the computer out the window when programming Java was the
 fact that every damn statement took, at minimum, three lines to do
 anything constructive just because all the identifiers were so bloody long.
 
 I want to write code.  Not a dissertation.  When you've got names that
 long, you just end up with this dense, unreadable mess.  Besides, if the
 names are a little bit cryptic, people will actually take the time to
 carefully read the code to make sure they understand it instead of
 assuming they know what it means, which is *clearly* better.
 
 Give me function names I can type in under three seconds and some decent
 comments any day.
 
 And that's the problem.  I think that for some people Phobos is better
 because it's a lot like the standard C library.  They like it like that.
  That's why I think all the calls for a complete merge are a bit silly;
 D's unique AFAIK in that it's got a very lean, simple API and a much
 more powerful, more complete API.
 
 Make them compatible, sure, but keep them separate.  Don't take away our
 toys just because *you* don't play with them.  :)


 We can probably do a bit better than that.
 I think that if we get the runtime sorted out, so that both Phobos and Tango
can 
 both be used together, then it ought to be possible to merge a lot of the 
 implementation code. But as long as they can't be used together, the situation 
 is hopeless.


Agreed. What i miss is the statement of Walter. How do you think about the
phobos future? Is phobos completed or is phobos 2.0 planned? This may help to
solve the incompatibility problem.