Lionello Lunesu wrote:
>> You can create a page by just typing in the URL in your browser, such as:
>> http://www.prowiki.org/wiki4d/wiki.cgi?HowTo/CompilePhobos
> 
> Done, and that exact spot!
> Still, it's a silly story. I mean, the biggest difficulty is the makefile. Building Phobos would be a no-brainer if the makefile would just build out of the box.
> 
> Walter, the missing files: are they obsolete, or just not included in the dmd distribution for license issues?
> 
> L.

None of the above.
This is just hilarious -- I wrote them!! You can download them from the 'mathextra' project on dsource. I had no idea they were in phobos.lib, but it explains why I've had some really weird linking errors...

etc.gamma is actually mentioned in the docs for std.math.gamma, so it's clearly supposed to be included. But 'realtest.d' contains the first lines of D that I ever wrote (It started life as "hello world"). The first line of it is a comment that it's not intended to be part of a standard library. I'm stunned to discover that it's been in phobos all this time. Guess I better tidy it up.

Don Clugston wrote:
> Lionello Lunesu wrote:
>>> You can create a page by just typing in the URL in your browser, such as:
>>> http://www.prowiki.org/wiki4d/wiki.cgi?HowTo/CompilePhobos
>>
>> Done, and that exact spot!
>> Still, it's a silly story. I mean, the biggest difficulty is the makefile. Building Phobos would be a no-brainer if the makefile would just build out of the box.
>>
>> Walter, the missing files: are they obsolete, or just not included in the dmd distribution for license issues?
>>
>> L.
> 
> None of the above.
> This is just hilarious -- I wrote them!! You can download them from the 'mathextra' project on dsource. I had no idea they were in phobos.lib, but it explains why I've had some really weird linking errors...
> 
> etc.gamma is actually mentioned in the docs for std.math.gamma, so it's clearly supposed to be included. But 'realtest.d' contains the first lines of D that I ever wrote (It started life as "hello world"). The first line of it is a comment that it's not intended to be part of a standard library. I'm stunned to discover that it's been in phobos all this time. Guess I better tidy it up.

I just added this issue to bugzilla. BTW, thanks for the instructions -- very helpful.

Lionello Lunesu wrote:

> I totally agree!
> 
> > A Best Practice would be to post one's changes on the newsgroup for peer review. And if well received, only then send them per e-mail to Walter.

I agree on that point.

> ...and that's the tricky part. There's no guarantee that the fix/add-on will make it into Phobos. Not because it might not be up to some standard, but because it's likely to be overseen. A newsgroup for Phobos might be a way of fixing this.

Agreed.

> 
> There's another problem. I don't "get" Phobos. If there's a thought behind it, I don't get it. I read the "philosophy" on the D site, and agree with it, but Phobos still looks like a bunch of random algorithms and patterns. For this reason, I, for one, would much rather submit patches to Ares than to Phobos.

Maybe Walther should say what's his vision on what should be in the scope of Phobos.

There're different approaches possible:

1) Minimalistic C/C++ like - std lib contains only small set of necessary things. Everything else is available through 3rd party libs.

2) Maximalistic Java/.NET like - std lib contains lots of stuff.

-- 
AKhropov

Andrei Khropov wrote:
> 
> There're different approaches possible:
> 
> 1) Minimalistic C/C++ like - std lib contains only small set of necessary
> things. Everything else is available through 3rd party libs.
> 
> 2) Maximalistic Java/.NET like - std lib contains lots of stuff.
> 

This has always been bugging me.  What are the reasons to do a minimalistic lib, besides us not having to write so much stuff?

On Sat, 17 Jun 2006 11:18:02 +1000, Chad J <gamerChad@_spamIsBad_gmail.com> wrote:

> Andrei Khropov wrote:
>>  There're different approaches possible:
>>  1) Minimalistic C/C++ like - std lib contains only small set of necessary
>> things. Everything else is available through 3rd party libs.
>>  2) Maximalistic Java/.NET like - std lib contains lots of stuff.
>>
>
> This has always been bugging me.  What are the reasons to do a minimalistic lib, besides us not having to write so much stuff?

The more you have to more you have to look after. Walter is only one person and doesn't command a team of maintenance staff. Even though Phobos is open source, it is not managed very well from a collabaration point of view. Each submission is still hand managed by Walter for inclusion.

-- 
Derek Parnell
Melbourne, Australia

Chad J wrote:

> Andrei Khropov wrote:
> > 
> > There're different approaches possible:
> > 
> > 1) Minimalistic C/C++ like - std lib contains only small set of necessary things. Everything else is available through 3rd party libs.
> > 
> > 2) Maximalistic Java/.NET like - std lib contains lots of stuff.
> > 
> 
> This has always been bugging me.  What are the reasons to do a minimalistic lib, besides us not having to write so much stuff?

I think it's a philosophical question:

With a maximalistic lib there is usually "one true way" to write something
(DB,GUI etc.).

with C++ -like approach you are encouraged to choose among different realizations (i.e. for GUI you may choose among wxWidgets, Gtk+, Qt, MFC ...) but in this case code is less portable and less consistent (it's incompatible between projects).

Most modern languages tend to use maximalistic approach.

-- 
AKhropov

> I'm stunned to discover that it's been in phobos all this time. Guess I better tidy it up.

realtest.d:
/** Helper functions for unit tests involving real numbers
 *
 * Not intended for inclusion in a standard library.
 */

LOL!

L.

In article <e6vg3s$ll4$1@digitaldaemon.com>, Andrei Khropov says...

>> There's another problem. I don't "get" Phobos. If there's a thought behind it, I don't get it. I read the "philosophy" on the D site, and agree with it, but Phobos still looks like a bunch of random algorithms and patterns. For this reason, I, for one, would much rather submit patches to Ares than to Phobos.
>
>Maybe Walther should say what's his vision on what should be in the scope of Phobos.
>
>There're different approaches possible:
>
>1) Minimalistic C/C++ like - std lib contains only small set of necessary things. Everything else is available through 3rd party libs.
>
>2) Maximalistic Java/.NET like - std lib contains lots of stuff.

I think it's quite clear as a Java/.Net developer that extensive (perhaps excessive) library support is a large part of the popularity.  It seems like a good idea for new languages trying to be popular to provide similar libraries.

Sean
>
>-- 
>AKhropov