On Tuesday, 19 October 2021 at 13:53:04 UTC, Paul Backus wrote:
On Tuesday, 19 October 2021 at 13:35:16 UTC, Timon Gehr wrote:
On 11.10.21 03:08, Paul Backus wrote:
Perhaps worth asking why Walter, specifically, is required to
work on @live in order for it to make progress. Is it just
because no one else is willing to step up to the plate, or is
he the only person qualified/capable enough?
I think @live is a dead end and any further work on it is
probably wasted unless the code is reusable for some other
feature. Ownership is a property of values, not of functions
operating on those values. In particular, prioritizing ImportC
over @live is the right call. ImportC is high-impact and
Walter has a lot of relevant expertise.
I this specific case, I agree completely. But there is a
broader pattern in D of projects getting "stuck" because a
specific individual is unable to continue work on them (e.g.,
std.experimental.allocator and Andrei), and I think it is worth
considering whether we can do anything to make future projects
robust against this mode of failure.
The obvious solution is more people who get paid to work on D the
language/stdlib/rt-env full-time. Where to get money to pay those
individuals? Well there's no obvious solution to that (that I
know of).
We can say community, but, like the vision documents, they will
be a bust because one can't _make_ volunteers meet deadlines,
code in a particular way, or incorporate all feedback language
maintainers think should be acted on.
