On Saturday, 7 December 2013 at 00:26:34 UTC, H. S. Teoh wrote:
On Sat, Dec 07, 2013 at 01:09:00AM +0100, John Colvin wrote:
On Friday, 6 December 2013 at 23:56:39 UTC, H. S. Teoh wrote:
>
>It would be nice to decouple Phobos modules more. A *lot*
>more.
Why? I've seen this point made several times and I can't
understand
why this is an important concern.
I see the interplay between phobos modules as good, it saves
reinventing the wheel all over the place, making for a smaller,
cleaner standard library.
Am I missing something fundamental here?
It's not that it's bad to reuse code. The problem is the
dependency is
too coarse-grained, so that if you want to, say, print "hello
world", it
pulls in all sorts of stuff, like algorithms for sorting arrays
(just an
example, not the actual case), or floating-point format parsers
(may
actually be the case), which aren't *needed* to perform that
particular
task. If printing "hello world" requires pulling in file
locking code,
then by all means, pull that in. But it shouldn't pull in, say,
std.complex just because some obscure corner of writeln's
implementation
makes a reference to std.complex.
What is the actual problem? Compile times? Binary size? Surely
not performance or efficency.
I remember someone from the Go team (maybe Pike), that they have
deliberate code duplication in the standard library to decouple
it. I did not understand the reasoning there, too.
