On 2011-06-21 16:02, Andrei Alexandrescu wrote:
On 6/21/11 4:18 AM, Jacob Carlborg wrote:
On 2011-06-21 00:32, Andrei Alexandrescu wrote:
On 6/20/11 4:28 PM, Jacob Carlborg wrote:
See my reply to Dmitry.
I see this as a dogfood issue. If there are things that should be in
Phobos and aren't, it would gain everybody to add them to Phobos.
All of these are not missing. For some of the things I just like doing
it differently then how Phobos does it.
I understand.
Anyhow, it all depends on what you want to do with the tool. If it's
written in D1, we won't be able to put it on the github
D-programming-language/tools (which doesn't mean it won't become
widespread).
So now suddenly D1 is banned? Seems like you are trying to destroy all
traces of D1. I think it would be better for all if you instead
encourage people to use D of any version and not use D2.
No need to politicize this - as I said, it's a matter of dogfood, as
well as one of focusing our efforts. You seem to not like the way D and
its standard library work, which is entirely fine, except when it comes
about adding an official tool.
I do like D1 and in general D2. What I'm having most problem with is
Phobos and that D2 sometimes (too often for me) doesn't work.
If we talk about making it an official tool I can understand that you
want it to be written in D2 and Phobos.
On the other hand I think that the D community should encourage all
developers using D, regardless of which version or standard library they
use. The community is too small for anything else.
BTW has std.benchmark gone through the regular review process?
I was sure someone will ask that at some point :o). The planned change
was to add a couple of functions, but then it got separated into its own
module. If several people think it's worth putting std.benchmark through
the review queue, let's do so. I'm sure the quality of the module will
be gained.
Andrei
Why would std.benchmark be an exception? Shouldn't all new modules and
big refactoring of existing ones go through the review process?
Again, the matter has been incidental - the module has grown from the
desire to reduce std.datetime. The new code only adds a couple of
functions. Going through the review process will definitely be helpful.
If none
one thinks it's worth putting std.benchmark through the review process
then it seems to me that people isn't thinking it worth adding to Phobos.
I wrote these functions for two reasons. One, I want to add a collection
of benchmarks to Phobos itself so we can keep tabs on performance.
Second, few people know how to write a benchmark and these functions
help to some extent, so the functions may be of interest beyond Phobos.
My perception is that there is an underlying matter making you look for
every opportunity to pick a fight. Your posts as of late have been
increasingly abrupt. Only in the post I'm replying to you have attempted
to ascribe political motives to me, to frame me as one who thinks is
above the rules, and to question the worthiness of my work. Instead of
doing all that, it may be more productive to focus on the core matter
and figuring out a way to resolve it.
Thanks,
Andrei
I'm sorry if my posts are abrupt. I'm not very good at writing in the
first place and my native language not being English doesn't help.
Sometimes I just want to answer something to just basically indicate
that I've read the reply, that may look abrupt, I don't know.
I just want to say one more thing (hoping you don't think I'm too
offensive) and that is that you sometimes seem to want to pretend that
there is no D1 and never has been.
Maybe I was a bit too harsh saying that std.benchmark maybe wasn't worth
adding. On the other hand isn't this what the review process is about
(or maybe this is before the review process)? We can't include
EVERYTHING in Phobos or it will become like the Java/C# standard
library, I assume we don't want that. I just saw a new module with
almost 1k lines of code and some additional changes as well and was
wondering why this haven't gone through the review process.
In the end I'm just trying to defend my code and ideas. Should I've not
answered the feedback I got on my ideas?
Anyway, I have no problem dropping this discussion and focusing on the
core matter and figuring out a way to resolve it.
--
/Jacob Carlborg
