On Tue, Jun 21, 2011 at 1:01 PM, Jacob Carlborg <d...@me.com> wrote: > On 2011-06-21 19:36, Jonathan M Davis wrote: > >> On 2011-06-21 10:17, Jacob Carlborg wrote: >> >>> 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. >>> >> >> Why not? Granted, we want quality code, and we only have so many people >> working on Phobos and only so many people to help vet code, but assuming >> that >> it can be written at the appropriate level of quality and that the >> functionality is generally useful, I don't see why we wouldn't want a >> large >> standard library like Java and C# have. Given our level of manpower, I >> don't >> expect that we'll ever have a standard library that large, but I don't see >> why >> having a large standard library would be a bad thing as long as it's of >> high >> quality and its functionality is generally useful. >> >> - Jonathan M Davis >> > > I just got that impression. That we want a relative small standard library > and have other libraries available as well. > > -- > /Jacob Carlborg >
What's wrong with having a standard library like C#'s? It's one of the greatest advantages of .NET programming.
