On 8/3/14, 11:37 AM, Sönke Ludwig wrote:
Am 03.08.2014 17:34, schrieb Andrei Alexandrescu:
On 8/3/14, 2:38 AM, Sönke Ludwig wrote:
[snip]
We need to address the matter of std.jgrandson competing with
vibe.data.json. Clearly at a point only one proposal will have to be
accepted so the other would be wasted work.
Following our email exchange I decided to work on this because (a) you
mentioned more work is needed and your schedule was unclear, (b) we need
this at FB sooner rather than later, (c) there were a few things I
thought can be improved in vibe.data.json. I hope that taking
std.jgrandson to proof spurs things into action.
Would you want to merge some of std.jgrandson's deltas into a new
proposal std.data.json based on vibe.data.json? Here's a few things that
I consider necessary:
1. Commit to a schedule. I can't abandon stuff in wait for the perfect
design that may or may not come someday.
This may be the crux w.r.t. the vibe.data.json implementation. My
schedule will be very crowded this month, so I could only really start
to work on it beginning of September. But apart from the mentioned
points, I think your implementation is already the closest thing to what
I have in mind, so I'm all for going the clean slate route (I'll have to
do a lot in terms of deprecation work in vibe.d anyway).
What would be your estimated time of finishing?
Would anyone want to take vibe.data.json and std.jgrandson, put them in
a crucible, and have std.data.json emerge from it in a timely manner? My
understanding is that everyone involved would be cool with that.
Andrei
