What's missing from Phobos for Orbit (package manager)

[Simen Kjaeraas]

On 2013-02-15, 18:20, Andrei Alexandrescu wrote:

> On 2/15/13 11:14 AM, Jacob Carlborg wrote:
>> On 2013-02-15 15:28, Steven Schveighoffer wrote:
>>
>>> That is an overstatement. I'm pretty sure people are interested in
>>> having serialization in Phobos.
>>
>> It's been in the review queue for over two years. I've pushed for it a
>> couple of times to get it reviewed but got no answers. I've basically
>> given up now.
>
> Here's what I think - in order to add things to Phobos and generally the  
> standard distribution you must revamp your entire attitude.
>
> I have a lot of sympathy because years ago I was in the exact position.  
> I'd written the Loki library for C++ that included many components  
> deserving inclusion in C++'s standard library. As a first step I asked  
> for Loki to be included in Boost. The attempt was met with interest but  
> it soon became obvious that I'd need to go through a difficult review  
> and make quite extensive adaptations and changes to the library in order  
> to be considered. My attitude was "take it or leave it" and that just  
> didn't work (and in retrospect, for the better).
>
> Part of the proposal was a policy-based smart pointer that was superior  
> in every way I could think of to other candidates. Yet the proposers of  
> those candidates were willing to go through the hard work of improving  
> and streamlining their proposals, to the point they got into Boost and  
> ultimately into the standard. With time the relative deficiencies of  
> that proposal was reduced by adding more kinds of smart pointers, so in  
> the end it all got where it is today. In contrast, I was busy with my  
> Ph.D. research so I didn't have the time to file away all rough edges.
>
> That was a good lesson to learn. Applied to the situation of today, to  
> get anything into the D programming language requires determination,  
> humility, and willingness to take criticism and convert it positively. I  
> think assuming that Orbit is a great finalized design that others fail  
> to appreciate is definitely the wrong starting point. The right starting  
> point is asking for feedback, integrate it, and ask again, all in a loop.

Very good. Thank you.


-- 
Simen