dave eveloper wrote:
Ezneh Wrote:
So, it is not better to find a compromise between these libraries ?
Why they have to be "two" libraries rather than one which was
designed by larsivi, Walter Bright and Andrei Alexandrescu ?
I haven't seen larsivi around lately. Is it possible that there's a
communication problem? Perhaps a personality mismatch?
Because of silly symbol names like 'retro' I think there's more
reason for someone to not like Phobos. Bearophile also always reminds
us that a proper closure inlining support would make collection
algorithms as fast as the ugly string template hack Phobos. That way
you wouldn't have hard coded parameter symbols like a and b.
If you could provide a list of silly named symbols that could be a
dealbreaker for a prospective D user, please let me know. Thanks.
Regarding simple lambdas encoded as strings, this:
sort!"a > b"(range);
is just a shortcut for this:
sort!((a, b) {return a > b;})(range);
So Phobos offers more, not less, than a library using delegates throughout.
Wasn't Tango an object oriented hardcore framework for large
applications, and Phobos a procedural simple stdio wrapper for
smaller scripts.
Probably not.
Andrei
