On Thursday, 6 September 2018 at 12:33:21 UTC, Everlast wrote:
On Wednesday, 5 September 2018 at 12:32:33 UTC, Andre Pany
wrote:
On Wednesday, 5 September 2018 at 06:47:00 UTC, Everlast wrote:
[...]
You showed as a painful issue in our eco system which we can
work on, thank you.
You do not need to work on this but do you have a proposal for
a solution? What would you help (ranking according to last
update, ...)
Kind regards
Andre
The problem is that all projects should be maintained. The
issue, besides the tooling which can only reduce the problem to
manageable levels, is that projects go stale over time.
This is obvious! You say though "But we can't maintain every
package, it is too much work"... and that is the problem, not
that it is too much work but there are too many packages. This
is the result of allowing everyone to build their own kitchen
sink instead of having some type of common base types.
It's sort of like most things now... say cell phone
batteries... everyone makes a different one to their liking and
so it is a big mess to find replacements after a few years.
See, suppose if there were only one package... and everyone
maintained it. Then as people leave other people will come in
in a continual basis and the package will always be maintained
as long as people are using it.
This is why D needs organization, which it has none. It needs
structure so things work and last and it isn't a continual
fight.
It's like if someone doesn't take care of their car. Eventually
it starts to break down and when they do shitty fixes it only
buys them a little time before it breaks down again and again.
The issue isn't the fixes nor the car but how they use the car
and not maintain it properly. That is, it is their mindsets.
Since D seems to be full of people with very little
understanding how how to build a proper foundation for
organization, D has little chance of surviving. As the car
breaks down more and more it is just a matter of time before it
ends up in the junk heap. It was a great car while it lasted
though...
That's what I have said elsewhere in the thread. Checking the
maintainer of a package, if there's no feedback, put the package
out of the main list and put it in a purgatory where it can get
stale for itself. If a new maintainer appears for a specific
package, it can be reinstated in the approved list when it works
again.
What annoys people is not that there are broken packages in the
list, but that there is no way to know beforehand if one is
choosing a reliable package or a hobby experiment gone wrong.
This uncertainty is grating imo.
