D : Not for me anymore

[Walter Bright]

John Reimer wrote:
> Shame on you, Walter.  You should know better than to think you
> have that much influence. ;D

If I'm not going to actively manage something, it's best not to get 
involved with it, as such tends to discourage others from taking the 
lead on it. They assume I will.


> The momentum died for strictly different reasons (most notable
> being the lack of contributors).

Lack of contributors is why most things wither. The more interesting 
question is why the lack of contributors. I had (incorrectly) thought 
that endorsing DWT would lead to more contributors and a more 
concentrated effort to get it done. The opposite seemed to happen.

> Your choice and timing just
> happened to be off on the matter. Okay, I admit that there was one
> other significant issue that was a personal annoyance: you failed
> to contact or discuss /anything/ with the people considering the
> ports of DWT (myself, Carlos ). You just announced the ports and
> that we were doing them (even though you had no idea what are
> personal feelings on the matter were or how serious we were about
> it).  I recall being quite shocked at your announcement. I think
> Carlos was too.

I'm sorry about that. I had incorrectly just assumed you'd be pleased by 
it. I wanted to support you guys' efforts.

> Regardless, we all know that GUI Frameworks are particularly
> troublesome to endorse since the area is so subjective.  It's
> probably a lost cause trying to support one over the other.  Best
> to encourage any GUI that people are willing to develop for D
> because I don't think any one framework will be acceptable as a
> standard.

That's where we're at now. There are several D gui's, too many for this 
community to really support properly.

> As for standard libraries, I think you should be ready to endorse
> an organized effort that presents itself with these traits:
> 
> 1. Is well documented
> 2. Meets the general approval of the community
> 3. Continues to be developed for multiple compilers in tandem (dmd
> and gdc)
> 4. Is actively developed for multiple platforms (linux, win32, Mac
> OS X)
> 5. Has a strategy layed out for future direction
> 6. Has a dedicated core group of developers that have shown
> dedication to the D language.
> 7. Is maintained under a version control system
> 
> Such traits by far surpass what Phobos can offer.  From my
> perspective, the act of endorsing such an effort hardly constitutes
> a risk.

I encourage, and have encouraged, anyone who wants to do this. Any or 
all parts of Phobos can be used as a starting point. The compiler is my 
central focus, to enable great libraries to be written.