> That is just the core concept of most modern programming languages: to have the language spec slim and general to allow powerful libraries with high performance and clean syntax.

Exactly right!

(Now, why couldn't I say that as simply ... <g>)

> FlyTox wrote:
>
> > Thanks for the information. So this means that DTL will be an external lib. Actually I was wondering why not have STL as part of the programming language. Who is nowaday doing any serious OOP without advanced object collections?
> >
> > Also most COM libraries have Variant interface arrays with iterators and since D is offering an easy way to implement COM interfaces that would be nice to have collections as part of the language. Will DTL allow an easy COM collection implementation in order to interface with VB apps?
> >
> > Should we have collections in an external lib? I believe that the next generation of programming language cannot ignore collections which are a major aspect of the nowaday OOP.
>

FlyTox schrieb:

> Should we have collections in an external lib? I believe that the next generation of programming language cannot ignore collections which are a major aspect of the nowaday OOP.

Very true. But nontheless: you cannot put everything into the core language, something will be still missing. Libraries are a sort of extension mecanism, which can fill this gap. So why not be everything a library? Well, it works in some languages, but with a C descentant this causes a bit more problems. Besides, putting everything into a compiler is hard and probably somewhat error-prone. So a balance has to be found. The core language in D already gives a lot compared to most languages (linear and associative container - the ones needed most often), and gives a solid basis for everything else... I think it should stay this way so far.

-eye

On Sun, 25 Apr 2004 23:48:51 +1000, Matthew wrote:

> 
> It's all horses for courses, in my opinion. In a slightly unrelated note, Walter and I have a continuing debate over my propensity for providing free functions along with class(es) when writing D libraries. He believes there should be only the class-based approach, but I see D as a broad church, which should welcome programmers with as diverse skills as is practicable.

Walter is right.

Ant

Norbert Nemec wrote:

>What is wrong with a standard library? 
>
D will probably be able to do a better job.  Also D has many features that overlap STL.  We want people to use the D way, not STL's.

-- 
-Anderson: http://badmama.com.au/~anderson/

Matthew wrote:
<snip>

Thanks for that update Matthew.  I can't wait <g>/

-- 
-Anderson: http://badmama.com.au/~anderson/

Oh no, not more pressure!!

<G>

"J Anderson" <REMOVEanderson@badmama.com.au> wrote in message news:c6gksu$24po$1@digitaldaemon.com...
> Matthew wrote:
> <snip>
>
> Thanks for that update Matthew.  I can't wait <g>/
>
> -- 
> -Anderson: http://badmama.com.au/~anderson/

What is the current state of DTL?

How finished are DTL and the compiler changes?

Matthew wrote:
> Oh no, not more pressure!!
> 
> <G>
> 
> "J Anderson" <REMOVEanderson@badmama.com.au> wrote in message
> news:c6gksu$24po$1@digitaldaemon.com...
> 
>>Matthew wrote:
>><snip>
>>
>>Thanks for that update Matthew.  I can't wait <g>/
>>
>>-- 
>>-Anderson: http://badmama.com.au/~anderson/
> 
> 
> 

Matthew wrote:

>Oh no, not more pressure!!
>
><G>
>  
>
I'm glad we've got someone who knows what he's doing, working on DTL.  Thanks for the effort Matthew.

-- 
-Anderson: http://badmama.com.au/~anderson/

On Sun, 25 Apr 2004 23:38:46 +1000, Matthew wrote:

> 
> 
> Thanks. Now I've got to live up to your expectation! :)

I don't get why this is not an open project.

can you explain?
My imagination is imagining the worst possibilities.

Thanks.

Ant

J Anderson wrote:

> Norbert Nemec wrote:
> 
>>What is wrong with a standard library?
>>
> D will probably be able to do a better job.  Also D has many features that overlap STL.  We want people to use the D way, not STL's.

I never talked of the C++ STL - I talked of *a* standard library. Of course, ideas will be picked from the C++ STL, but we can certainly do a better job that *that* in D. And how it is called in the end - who knows. Probably just "part of the D library". (If it really is standard, it does not need a name claiming to be standard...)