On 13.07.2011 15:39, shd wrote:
>
> I hope i didn't bored you too much with my imagination because there
> is something more i don't like. Directory hierarchy :) It's not
> D-related though.
Understanding a risk of going completely  OT: you are not alone on this one :)
Time ago I thought of something more like tag based file system, where filetypes and e.g. date of modification are just that  - one of myriad of tags, besides any additional that are user/system defined.
Though I have never reached any more or less complete design, the idea still thrills me.

-- 
Dmitry Olshansky

shd Wrote:

> 2011/7/13 Jesse Phillips <jessekphillips+D@gmail.com>:
> > You say no to libraries
> 
> That's not true! I'm not sure how did you came up to this conclusions, but i love libraries for applications same as command-line programs (like ffmpeg) for GUI apps.

It comes from, "and APIs are not what i'd love to work with[...]"

A good library provides a good API. You build reusable code by creating a library that defines interfaces and routines that can be used by many applications.

You make a library replaceable by providing defined interfaces and routines that another library can mimic.

You generally don't provide a project that allows swapping out an implementation detail from a compiler switch, such as which Associative Array library to use. If you are doing graphical display you might want to support rendering to Cairo or QT or Windows Forms, but this means you will have to write the code that works with them. Or you'll have to define the API for which your library expects of a graphics rendering library and the person wanting to use one will need to write a wrapper for one of these libraries to conform to your API. This means they will have to write some code and will be using their own build setup and not one you have provided.

I hope I'm being a little helpful, or at least you can see where I'm getting confused. Anyway it seems you got something workable (I was hoping someone else would pick this up if I asked the initial questions and it worked).

2011/7/13 Dmitry Olshansky <dmitry.olsh@gmail.com>
> Time ago I thought of something more like tag based file system, where
> filetypes and e.g. date of modification are just that  - one of myriad of
> tags, besides any additional that are user/system defined.
> Though I have never reached any more or less complete design, the idea still
> thrills me.
Been thinking about it too, so i suppose it's quite common idea :)
I didn't even started designing it for real (to code) because i don't
think i had/have now necessary qualifications, time and... come on -
it had to be part of my uber secure and (quite...) easy to use
operating system with semi-formally tested microkernel... but doh :)
Yeah, one of this extremely unlikely to achieve ideas.
But this is good when other people have similar thoughts. Maybe
someday, someone will make it.

2011/7/13 Jesse Phillips <jessekphillips+D@gmail.com>:
> shd Wrote:
>> 2011/7/13 Jesse Phillips <jessekphillips+D@gmail.com>:
>> > You say no to libraries
>>
>> That's not true! I'm not sure how did you came up to this conclusions, but i love libraries for applications same as command-line programs (like ffmpeg) for GUI apps.
>
> It comes from, "and APIs are not what i'd love to work with[...]"
Yeah, but it doesn't mean i don't like library concept.

The other thing is, i'm not saying libraries i'm using got bad APIs. They're not D, so they have to be C which means APIs aren't OO and i'd like to use in my code OO things which are good integrating with D language features. Furthermore, API is the only one of aspects for choosing library for yourself.


> A good library provides a good API. You build reusable code by creating a library that defines interfaces and routines that can be used by many applications.
>
> You make a library replaceable by providing defined interfaces and routines that another library can mimic.
>
> You generally don't provide a project that allows swapping out an implementation detail from a compiler switch, such as which Associative Array library to use. If you are doing graphical display you might want to support rendering to Cairo or QT or Windows Forms, but this means you will have to write the code that works with them. Or you'll have to define the API for which your library expects of a graphics rendering library and the person wanting to use one will need to write a wrapper for one of these libraries to conform to your API. This means they will have to write some code and will be using their own build setup and not one you have provided.

I see your point, but i'm young enough to try things on my way first. If it won't work, i'll refactor/drop whatever.The only things i don't want to implement, are if someone already tried it, described that it failed (and WHY), If you see something against swappable implementations besides of performance and 'you can abstract it out', then i'll gladly hear. It's a personal project where i'm making first steps in this area, so i'd like to take advantage of my freshness. I'm not doing it because i have to feed myself and my family, nor someone (besides of me) isn't attached to success of it. If only thing i get from it is knowledge (and fun), good for me. So, if the only thing against is, 'generally people are doing other way' - it's ok for me to try my way.

Anyway, it's not true that people aren't swapping implementations during compilation. Most famous example i believe would be linux kernel and it's config. Can't you tweak scheduler algorithm, or 439284 other options? Yes, you can. I think it's cool.


> I hope I'm being a little helpful, or at least you can see where I'm getting confused. Anyway it seems you got something workable (I was hoping someone else would pick this up if I asked the initial questions and it worked).
Yep, you helped a lot. Thank you.