On 11/18/2016 06:09 PM, pineapple wrote: > There should be no need for me to repeat the arguments against the DIP > process already made by others. I will be submitting no more DIPs or > engaging in the process in any way unless and until it is significantly > changed.
There seems to be a recurring misconception that submitting a DIP is somehow doing language developers a service. It is exactly other way around - the whole DIP process is designed to help those who are willing to commit hard and selfless work to get something into language. There is hardy any lack of ideas about language improvements at any time. I consider DIP process to fail when one of specific case happens: there is someone willing to commit but that person doesn't get deserved feedback. That was very clearly said in my explanations of the rationale which got published on dlang blog and yet seems to come as surprise.
Description: OpenPGP digital signature