On 22/06/2024 8:37 PM, Paolo Invernizzi wrote:
> Independent ... but with dependency?
> The impression is that everything in D-lanD is moving towards an over-eng complexity ...

No no.

Its literally just the event loop shard depends upon base shard.

Explicit dependencies, no accidental importing something that you shouldn't be able to without clear stated intention.

This is a key goal of PhobosV3 work, was to break the interdependencies of modules.

On Saturday, 22 June 2024 at 10:28:10 UTC, Richard (Rikki) Andrew Cattermole wrote:
> On 22/06/2024 8:37 PM, Paolo Invernizzi wrote:
>> Independent ... but with dependency?
>> The impression is that everything in D-lanD is moving towards an over-eng complexity ...
>
> No no.
>
> Its literally just the event loop shard depends upon base shard.
>
> Explicit dependencies, no accidental importing something that you shouldn't be able to without clear stated intention.
>
> This is a key goal of PhobosV3 work, was to break the interdependencies of modules.

I still think it's over-eng.

Indirect dependencies of module are direct dependencies of the imported module, that means that the opinion is that the imported module is using another module without a valid good reason. So, the only thing to do is "just" (well, "just" ...) improve the quality of imported module itself, cleaning it. Why is it necessary to have another abstraction, shard, in a already complicated language like D?

Another thing is the policy to "forbid the usage of a module" in a project. For example, we forbid to import directly "std.stdio", but the task is handled by our custom builder, that just enforce that.

On 24/06/2024 3:59 AM, Paolo Invernizzi wrote:
> On Saturday, 22 June 2024 at 10:28:10 UTC, Richard (Rikki) Andrew Cattermole wrote:
>> On 22/06/2024 8:37 PM, Paolo Invernizzi wrote:
>>> Independent ... but with dependency?
>>> The impression is that everything in D-lanD is moving towards an over-eng complexity ...
>>
>> No no.
>>
>> Its literally just the event loop shard depends upon base shard.
>>
>> Explicit dependencies, no accidental importing something that you shouldn't be able to without clear stated intention.
>>
>> This is a key goal of PhobosV3 work, was to break the interdependencies of modules.
> 
> I still think it's over-eng.
> 
> Indirect dependencies of module are direct dependencies of the imported module, that means that the opinion is that the imported module is using another module without a valid good reason. So, the only thing to do is "just" (well, "just" ...) improve the quality of imported module itself, cleaning it. Why is it necessary to have another abstraction, shard, in a already complicated language like D?

What new language concept?

Its purely build system, what files get passed to the compiler and made available via ``-I``.

Everything is in place except the build system (and enabling of PAYG for linking).

It is no different than a dub sub package and explicitly setting the dependencies there.

On Sunday, 23 June 2024 at 16:09:00 UTC, Richard (Rikki) Andrew Cattermole wrote:
>
> On 24/06/2024 3:59 AM, Paolo Invernizzi wrote:
>> On Saturday, 22 June 2024 at 10:28:10 UTC, Richard (Rikki) Andrew Cattermole wrote:
>>> On 22/06/2024 8:37 PM, Paolo Invernizzi wrote:
>>>> Independent ... but with dependency?
>>>> The impression is that everything in D-lanD is moving towards an over-eng complexity ...
>>>
>>> No no.
>>>
>>> Its literally just the event loop shard depends upon base shard.
>>>
>>> Explicit dependencies, no accidental importing something that you shouldn't be able to without clear stated intention.
>>>
>>> This is a key goal of PhobosV3 work, was to break the interdependencies of modules.
>> 
>> I still think it's over-eng.
>> 
>> Indirect dependencies of module are direct dependencies of the imported module, that means that the opinion is that the imported module is using another module without a valid good reason. So, the only thing to do is "just" (well, "just" ...) improve the quality of imported module itself, cleaning it. Why is it necessary to have another abstraction, shard, in a already complicated language like D?
>
> What new language concept?
>
> Its purely build system, what files get passed to the compiler and made available via ``-I``.
>
> Everything is in place except the build system (and enabling of PAYG for linking).
>
> It is no different than a dub sub package and explicitly setting the dependencies there.

Language intended as language as a whole, ecosystem included. I still don't grasp where's the improvement over the status quo of a monolithic Phobos and far west dub modules.

Phobos modules interdependencies should be reduced? It's a decade that this point is on the table, I was here when Andrei rants about Phobos quality were flying around.  Nothing new introduced into the "language as a whole" supersede the simple point that hard analysis work needs to be done on the code itself.

I still do not grasp the point.

/P

On 24/06/2024 4:24 AM, Paolo Invernizzi wrote:
> On Sunday, 23 June 2024 at 16:09:00 UTC, Richard (Rikki) Andrew Cattermole wrote:
>>
>> On 24/06/2024 3:59 AM, Paolo Invernizzi wrote:
>>> On Saturday, 22 June 2024 at 10:28:10 UTC, Richard (Rikki) Andrew Cattermole wrote:
>>>> On 22/06/2024 8:37 PM, Paolo Invernizzi wrote:
>>>>> Independent ... but with dependency?
>>>>> The impression is that everything in D-lanD is moving towards an over-eng complexity ...
>>>>
>>>> No no.
>>>>
>>>> Its literally just the event loop shard depends upon base shard.
>>>>
>>>> Explicit dependencies, no accidental importing something that you shouldn't be able to without clear stated intention.
>>>>
>>>> This is a key goal of PhobosV3 work, was to break the interdependencies of modules.
>>>
>>> I still think it's over-eng.
>>>
>>> Indirect dependencies of module are direct dependencies of the imported module, that means that the opinion is that the imported module is using another module without a valid good reason. So, the only thing to do is "just" (well, "just" ...) improve the quality of imported module itself, cleaning it. Why is it necessary to have another abstraction, shard, in a already complicated language like D?
>>
>> What new language concept?
>>
>> Its purely build system, what files get passed to the compiler and made available via ``-I``.
>>
>> Everything is in place except the build system (and enabling of PAYG for linking).
>>
>> It is no different than a dub sub package and explicitly setting the dependencies there.
> 
> Language intended as language as a whole, ecosystem included. I still don't grasp where's the improvement over the status quo of a monolithic Phobos and far west dub modules.
> 
> Phobos modules interdependencies should be reduced? It's a decade that this point is on the table, I was here when Andrei rants about Phobos quality were flying around.  Nothing new introduced into the "language as a whole" supersede the simple point that hard analysis work needs to be done on the code itself.
> 
> I still do not grasp the point.
> 
> /P

If you want to grow the standard library you have no choice but to split into different binaries.

That 64k symbol limit is quite the limiter here.

Having stuff like eventloops or even just curl which are heavily tied to platform specifics does prevent porting even the subset that doesn't depend on anything on the platform. In practice nobody ports phobos but they do copy stuff out of it.

At some point a split will occur, a well defined split is better than "we can't release dmd anymore as it won't link".

On Sunday, 23 June 2024 at 16:24:23 UTC, Paolo Invernizzi wrote:
> 
> Phobos modules interdependencies should be reduced? It's a decade that this point is on the table, I was here when Andrei rants about Phobos quality were flying around.  Nothing new introduced into the "language as a whole" supersede the simple point that hard analysis work needs to be done on the code itself.

is it hard? I'd try just "tempateify" everything

I think you could write a script that trasformed `alias foo=`=> `alias foo()=` and `[type] foo(*){`=> `[type] foo()(*){`