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.