On Tuesday, 26 January 2016 at 14:24:57 UTC, Joakim wrote:
On Tuesday, 26 January 2016 at 07:18:43 UTC, Ola Fosheim
Grøstad wrote:
On Tuesday, 26 January 2016 at 04:57:11 UTC, Joakim wrote:
It is amazing that D has gotten so far as an OSS project
without commercial backing, a credit to the engineering sense
of Walter and the core team. But I don't think you can
organize your way around that fundamental obstacle.
I don't think that is accurate at all.
Which part? There's at least three statements there, one
largely factual, one opinion, then a prediction. It's unclear
what you think is inaccurate, since you don't say.
I don't think OSS needs commercial backing to reach high
technical levels. I do think that many OSS projects spend too
little time on design and process, and well, design and
coordination is more challenging when you aren't co-located in
the same place. I also think that often implementors take
leading roles in OSS, when that role should have been taken by a
designer/coordinator that would spend more time on leadership. If
you spend 10% leading and 90% coding then the leading part
suffers...
But there are tools we can use, if the issue was recognized.
I wouldn't say D has pushed the difficult parts, and often
Memory management. Performant garbage collection. Coherent
semantics.
implementing takes a lot of work too. Obviously, the design is
usually more important in the long-term, but the design "on
paper" won't matter if nobody wants to implement it.
They probably would if there was consensus behind it, it was
solid, important and had a seal of approval.
