On Tue, 18 Jan 2011 13:27:56 +0200, bearophile <bearophileh...@lycos.com>
wrote:
Vladimir Panteleev:
Forcing a code repository is bad.
In this case I was not suggesting to force things :-) But having a place
to find reliable modules is very good.
This is not practical.
It works in Python, Ruby and often in Perl too, so I don't agree.
I think we have a misunderstanding, then? Who ensures that the modules
"just work"? If someone breaks something, are they thrown out of The Holy
Repository?
I assume you mean naming conventions and not actual code style
(indentation etc.)
I meant that D code written by different people is better looking
similar, where possible. C/C++ programmers have too much freedom where
freedom is not necessary. Reducing some of such useless freedom helps
improve the code ecosystem.
It also demotivates and alienates programmers.
- Currently D packages are not working well yet, there are bug reports
on this.
- Something higher level than packages is useful when you build very
large systems.
- Module system theory from ML-like languages shows many years old ideas
that otherwise will need to be painfully re-invented half-broken by D
language developers. Sometimes wasting three days reading saves you some
years of pain.
I'm curious (not arguing), can you provide examples? I can't think of any
drastic improvements to the package system.
I don't think this is practical until someone writes a D interpreter.
CTFE interpter is already there :-)
So you think the subset of D that's CTFE-able is good enough to make an
interactive console that's actually useful?
--
Best regards,
Vladimir mailto:vladi...@thecybershadow.net
