Vision for the first semester of 2016

[tsbockman via Digitalmars-d-announce]

On Tuesday, 26 January 2016 at 21:47:41 UTC, Ola Fosheim Grøstad 
wrote:
> On Tuesday, 26 January 2016 at 21:03:01 UTC, tsbockman wrote:
>> Also, you skipped past the "uninterested" part - this is a 
>> volunteer project, remember?
>
> I didn't think it was a relevant argument as you can still 
> write libraries for distribution. Keep in mind that the 
> standard library has to be maintained and API's cannot easily 
> be redesigned because of backwards compatibility.
>
> Even if C/C++ have small standard libraries they provide a 
> depressing amount of low quality functionality that one should 
> avoid. But it is kept in for backwards compatibility and 
> sometimes even updated and extended...
>
> That not a good thing.

There are certainly disadvantages to the standard library model 
of distribution and maintenance.

On the other hand:

1) The prospect of getting something into the standard library is 
a huge motivator for (at least some) potential contributors.

Why? Because building a library that no one knows about/trusts is 
wasted effort. Getting something into `std` is among the most 
effective forms of marketing available, and requires little 
non-programming-related skill or effort on the part of the 
contributor.

2) Standard libraries don't enforce backwards compatibility (and 
high code quality in general) just for the sake of bureaucracy - 
they do so because these are highly desirable characteristics for 
basic infrastructure. People shouldn't have to rewrite their 
entire stack every 6 months just because someone thought of a 
better API for some low-level component.

Making it through D's formal review process typically raises code 
quality quite a lot, and the knowledge that backwards 
compatibility is a high priority makes outsiders much more likely 
to invest in actually using a library module.

In short, while you make some valid points, your analysis seems 
very lopsided; it completely glosses over all of the positives 
associated with the status quo.