Beta 2.098.0

[Tejas]

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.