Lars T. Kyllingstad wrote:
Kevin Bealer wrote:
Walter Bright Wrote:
Kevin Bealer wrote:
To smooth this out, it would help to have the best practices for
doing common things in D (e.g. serialization, logging) somewhat
documented for the consumption of non-experts. I wonder what a good
way of doing this is?
It's really impossible to predict what the best practices would be.
Only time and usage will tell. The "best practices" for both C and
C++ have evolved significantly over time.
I think D2 is so different from D (and in some important ways, from
everything out there) that a new usage style would have needed to be
created even if D was already the lingua franca.
The question that I find myself thinking is -- is chaos better or is
it better to try to establish a particular style of programming
(however simply or poorly) in the original books and resources that a
programmer will find upon discovering D?
Chaos has its appeal of course, but others would say that any initial
style that will stick is better than no style. In other words, that
you cannot evolve until you cohere. It's hard to choose... On the
other hand I suppose Phobos is consistent enough with itself that if
people follow that they will have a launch point.
If naming guidelines are a part of the "coding style" you mention, then
Phobos isn't very consistent. I think this needs to be fixed before TDPL
comes out, even though the renaming will cause major breakage. This is
the last chance to get it right.
TDPL hardly mentions Phobos. There is a lot more time for getting Phobos
right. Phobos will get a major overhaul early next year.
