On Wednesday, 25 May 2016 at 22:48:53 UTC, pineapple wrote:
> On Wednesday, 25 May 2016 at 22:29:38 UTC, pineapple wrote:
>> I will do that
>
> ...I'm honestly having second thoughts because reading the style guide for phobos was like a watching a B horror movie.
>
> All the code in the mach.d repo is very permissively licensed and anyone with the patience to write code that looks like this is absolutely free to morph my pretty code into ugly phobos code if they like, provided the license is adhered to (which can be pretty effectively summed up as "please just give credit where it's due")

If you are up to maintaining your lib for your own purposes AND phobos module, you can run your code through dfmt to adjust to the phobos style guide.

On the other hand, from what I observed about programming language communities, adding a standard library module seems like a ton of work, including:
- Long philosophical discussions about which specific functions should or shouldn't be in the standard library, even when their usefulness for module users is obvious.
- Long discussions about merging with or reusing other existing modules, which result in your solution not being clean anymore, which in turn triggers more discussions about what should be excluded from the module.
- Adding unittests and type restrictions, static ifs and optimizations for every conceivable use case.

I would't bother adding something to standard library unless I was an expert in the field who was likely to get things right the first time. I would definitely not bother if a module is just means to achieve another goal.

It might be better to observe how your code evolves over time and then select one or two specific pieces which are definitely useful, clean and correct.

On Wednesday, 25 May 2016 at 22:59:44 UTC, Craig Dillabaugh wrote:
> Hey, have you looked at:  http://dgame-dev.de/

I did, but I wasn't satisfied with the OOP approach and figured it would be more fun to write my own wrapper than try to wrestle Dgame into doing what I want a graphics library to do. It has served as a remarkable source of inspiration for my own project, though.

On Thursday, 26 May 2016 at 03:49:08 UTC, Vladimir Panteleev wrote:
> 3. Commitment. Making your library for general consumption means proper versioning, upgrade paths and things like that. It's an additional mental burden on top of getting the thing you want done done.

Agreed completely - I don't need this sort of additional overhead, I just want to write code. If others might find my code useful I'm overjoyed to share it with them, but I'm not interested in making my process so rigid just to make it a little more convenient for others to use it.