On Wednesday, 23 October 2019 at 00:03:35 UTC, Jonathan M Davis
wrote:
On Monday, October 21, 2019 6:59:21 AM MDT Exil via
Digitalmars-d-announce wrote:
> This proposal is one step toward a larger goal outlined in
> the
>
> blog post ['Ownership and Borrowing in
> D'](https://dlang.org/blog/2019/07/15/ownership-and-borrowing-in-d/).
That's the only line that was added, no other changes were
made to the core DIP from the first revision to the last. Big
ducking surprise this got accepted anyways.
Did you expect anything else? Given that it was Walter's DIP,
and he's making the decisions, the only way that the DIP was
going to change was if he were convinced that the DIP was
flawed. He's been convinced of that before (e.g. the DIP that
was for adding a bottom type was written by Walter, but it was
rejected, because the community convinced him that it was a bad
idea).
I wasn't expecting any better, but I did have hope.
He just wasn't convinced that this DIP was a bad idea.
The "problem" this DIP is supposed to solve (per the poorly
written DIP) isn't actually solved by the DIP. No answer was
given to that fact. Other than the actual problem this DIP was
supposed to be solved will be fixed at a later date by a separate
DIP.
Personally, I didn't see any problem with this DIP, since it
just tightened down @safe a bit.
Breaking changes, the author took no time to even try to measure
how wide spread it would be. There are no benefits, the problems
that are supposed to be solved with it aren't actually solved.
Not to mention the problem is actually solved just by using the
GC. Like you are only able to in @safe code anyways.
Whether the next steps in the "larger goal" are good ones is
another matter entirely, and those will be put in a DIP (or
multiple DIPs) and argued on their own at some point.
There's no reason for this one to be on it's own. It's useless on
it's own, causes breaking changes, and who knows what the rest of
the implementation might end up looking like. This is being done
all prematurely.
And if they're bad ideas, then hopefully he will be convinced
of that when those DIPs are discussed. Ultimately though, no
matter who comes up with the DIP, Walter has to be convinced
that it's a good idea. It's just that if it's his DIP, he's
already convinced that it's a good idea, so someone has to then
convince him otherwise for it to not be accepted.
It's hard to argue against an idea that isn't fully formed. All
of his arguments against the DIP were based on the fact that
nothing is implemented. It's easy to say, Oh that'll be fixed in
Part 2 of a third DIP down the road.
D wouldn't be what it is today.
You can look at it both ways, in that sense. (Half full glass)
Should create a DIPW process then, duck the foundation and any
formalities. Which stands for DIPWalter, which simply consists of
a single step where a single topic tries to convince Walter it's
a bad idea. Why have two community reviews? Those are made with
the assumption that the DIP will actually change between the
reviews. What's the point of a "formal review" when there's just
Walter talking to himself (rip Andrei). Why waste everyone's time
on formalities when they obviously are irrelevant?
