On Monday, 27 August 2018 at 01:15:49 UTC, Laeeth Isharc wrote:
It's simple, I went to GitLab to see the code of the tool, and I
found the articles among the other projects of the author.
I don't think he was very happy about the process around
DIP1000 but I am not myself well placed to judge.
The whole story is pretty simple [1].
From my perspective, the request was to confine feature
development into separate branch, to don't impact language
adopters.
Pay-as-you-go all way down, also for the compiler/rt/phobos
codebase itself.
I definitely think a stable version with backfixes ported would
be great if feasible.
The other way round: "keep it in sync with specification
document, design set of acceptance tests and do all the
development in a separate branch until is verified to both have
desired semantics and don't cause any breakage in existing
projects." [2]
I would like your opinion on that specific request, "keep it in
sync with specification document" versus "bureaucracy" [3]
I wonder if we are approaching the point where enterprise
crowd-funding of missing features or capabilities in the
ecosystem could make sense. If you look at how Liran managed
to find David Nadlinger to help him, it could just be in part a
matter of lacking social organisation preventing the market
addressing unfulfilled mutual coincidences of wants. Lots of
capable people would like to work full time programming in D.
Enough firms would like some improvements made. If takes work
to organise these things. If I were a student I might be
trying to see if there was an opportunity there.
That would great for the ecosystem, for the language... [4]
[1] https://forum.dlang.org/thread/o62rml$mju$1...@digitalmars.com
[2] https://forum.dlang.org/post/o6fih1$2b14$1...@digitalmars.com
[3] https://github.com/dlang/dmd/pull/8346
[4]
https://forum.dlang.org/post/detxilaksggqsrdao...@forum.dlang.org
/Paolo
