Time to do a Man's Work ??

[Sean Kelly]

David B. Held wrote:
> James Dennett wrote:
>> [...]
>> If we take the rules of one moderated forum with which
>> I am familiar, there are no limits on how forceful
>> criticisms of designs or implementations can be -- but
>> no personal attacks are permitted.  Occasionally
>> something slips past the moderators that others view
>> as a personal attack, and that usually wastes some
>> cycles when it does occur.  But rarely is there much
>> disruption from discussion of technical matters, even
>> when it's wrong/aggressive/discouraging.  Even the
>> very best programmers make many mistakes, and they
>> get to *be* the very best by being open to finding
>> those mistakes and learning from them.
>> [...]
> 
> Yup.  I learned much of what I know about C++ from participating in 
> Boost, and I will tell you something...Boost contributors can be the 
> most unforgiving software critics you ever met.  Criticisms can be 
> brutal, scathing, and downright heartless, but they are always about the 
> technical merits of libraries being proposed.

Same here.  Boost and the C++ usenet groups (c.l.c++.m and c.s.c++) have 
been a significant factor in shaping the way I present myself online.

> Is D ready for something like a Boost effort?  I don't know.  Like I 
> implied, it takes more than mere technical merit to form a community 
> like Boost.  But I think it would be great if we asked ourselves if we 
> were ready for something like this, and did what it takes to make it 
> happen.  I think this is something of what Walter was suggesting when it 
> comes to "certified" libraries in DSource.  "Certified" means "peer 
> reviewed *and approved* by experts", and should give the same type of 
> quality guarantee that "Boost Library" does.  Just something to think 
> about...

For what it's worth, this is what the Ares project was originally 
intended to be.  But in hindsight, I think it was probably a bit 
premature, and the goal of the project changed over time as a result. 
Tango is a bit more focused in what we aim to achieve however, and I 
think the vetting of new packages would probably be better done in an 
independent project.  The proposed dsource rating system may indeed be 
the best place for this, particularly if there were a structured way to 
evaluate or critique code.


Sean