D : Not for me anymore

[John Reimer]

On Sun, 15 Oct 2006 23:55:55 -0700, Walter Bright  
<newshound at digitalmars.com> wrote:

> 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.
>


Understood.


>> 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.
>


Good question.  I never quite figured that one out either.  I guess, like  
others have said, SWT, as powerful as it is, just isn't that popular.


>> 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.
>


Ah, I forgive you.  I thank you for trying to support our efforts even if  
it didn't work out quite right.


>> 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.
>


I'm not so sure there are too many GUI's to support properly.  I think it  
doesn't matter how many or few there are.  If there's a couple out of the  
bunch that are popular enough, they will be supported... if the community  
wants it enough.


>> 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.


Thank you for stating that here.  It's very much appreciated, as is all of  
your work.  I know you've stated it in so many words before, but sometimes  
repitition seems to be the only way to get things across in a newsgroup  
where posts quickly get lost in the pile.

-JJR