11-May-2013 22:15, Daniel Murphy пишет:
If we aren't confident that we can write and maintain a large real-world
application in D just yet, we must pull the emergency brakes on the whole
DDDMD effort, right now.
David
I'm confident in D, just not in phobos. Even if phobos didn't exist, we'd
still be in better shape using D than C++. What exactly are we going to
need from phobos? sockets? std.datetime? std.regex? std.container?
Sockets may come in handy one day. Caching compiler daemon etc.
std.container well ... mm ... eventually.
If we use them in the compiler, we effectively freeze them. We can't use
the new modules, because the old toolchains don't have them. We can't fix
old broken modules because the compiler depends on them. If you add code to
work around old modules being gone in later versions, you pretty much end up
moving the source into the compiler after all.
I propose a different middle ground:
Define a minimal subset of phobos, compilable and usable separately.
Then full phobos will depend on it in turn (or rather contain it).
Related to my recent thread on limiting inter-dependencies - we will
have to face that problem while make a subset of phobos.
It has some operational costs but will limit the frozen surface.
--
Dmitry Olshansky
