Andrei Alexandrescu Wrote: > == Quote from Walter Bright (newshou...@digitalmars.com)'s article > > foobar wrote: > > > ATM, Phobos ranks extremely poorly in this regard. Far worse than C++ > > > which > > > is by far one of worst ever. both Java and C# are surprisingly high on > > > this > > > list and are behind various "new-age" scripting languages such as python > > > and > > > Ruby and languages that were designed to be readable by humans such as > > > Smalltalk. > > I think you've mixed up libraries with languages. Please rephrase so we know > > what you're referring to and give specifics. > > Seconded. Also there is this one presupposition that reflects poorly on > foobar's argument: that choosing foobar's > preferred convention inherently makes the code more accessible. In fact, a > stronger argument could be made to > the contrary as we're talking about a maximum and 80 < 120. > > Andrei from the ER
That's just incorrect since I didn't even specify my style convention. As I said multiple times before, Phobos is design with Andrei in mind: meaning that if you are Andrei-like (or if you _are_ indeed Andrei) it would be easy to read and use. Otherwise it confusing as hell and hard to navigate. In addition, you now want to force artificial limits that don't make any sense. You completely miss the most important principle - it doesn't matter how good and efficient your product is if no one's using it. Phobos is a very good product that I for one will never use. Just looking at the one huge page for algorithms is enough to discourage many people.
