"David Nadlinger" <s...@klickverbot.at> wrote in message news:bwkwvbjdykrnsdezp...@forum.dlang.org... > On Saturday, 11 May 2013 at 17:23:53 UTC, Daniel Murphy wrote: >> That... doesn't sound very nice to me. How much of phobos are we >> realistically going to need? > > All of it? Well, not quite, but large parts at least. > > If we are going to stick to the C subset of the language, there is little > point in translating it to D in the first place. >
I disagree. Phobos is great, but there are thousands of things in the language itself that make it much more pleasant and effective than C++. > Of course, there will be some restrictions arising from the fact that the > code base needs to work with D versions from a year back or so. But to me > duplicating the whole standard library inside the compiler source seems > like maintenance hell. > > David I agree. But I was thinking much longer term compatibility, and a much smaller chunk of phobos.