On 2011-06-21 20:11, Jimmy Cao wrote:
On Tue, Jun 21, 2011 at 1:01 PM, Jacob Carlborg <d...@me.com <mailto: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.
I'm not saying it's something wrong with having a standard library as C#/Java. Again, I just got that impression. Emphasis on "impression".
-- /Jacob Carlborg
