Welcome, Guest. Please login or register. Did you miss your activation email?

Author Topic: Conflicts with tango/phobos and other stuff  (Read 2335 times)

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

Odeamus

  • Newbie
  • *
  • Posts: 8
    • View Profile
Conflicts with tango/phobos and other stuff
« on: January 02, 2009, 10:27:48 pm »
Would it be a bad idea to drop support for stuff that is already implemented in tango/phobos? For example threading? I don't see any point in using SFML's threads.

Just thinking that supporting only those features which haven't been done in either runtime would make maintenance so much easier. Plus people using the D binding wont get unnecessary conflicts.

I don't know if I'd go so far as to implement some of the modules in D and dropping the c/c++ implementation for them altogether. For example the clock-module.

Just a thought.

SirJulio

  • Full Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 242
    • View Profile
Conflicts with tango/phobos and other stuff
« Reply #1 on: January 02, 2009, 10:53:47 pm »
That was the first question I asked to myself, when I started the maintenance of the binding. =)

System and network provide lots of duplicate with existing function|classes already present in phobos or tango.

I can only keep audio graphics and window, and drop system and network (like the .Net binding). I'll think about it after the upcoming release, but yeah that would be easier to only maintain three module instead of five.

Odeamus

  • Newbie
  • *
  • Posts: 8
    • View Profile
Conflicts with tango/phobos and other stuff
« Reply #2 on: January 02, 2009, 11:26:05 pm »
That would be my personal recommendation. I don't see anything in the network module that would ever be preferable to what tango or phobos provides. The system module is pretty much the same except for the vector structs.