More radical ideas about gc and reference counting

[Andrei Alexandrescu via Digitalmars-d]

On 5/5/14, 11:39 PM, Manu via Digitalmars-d wrote:
> On 6 May 2014 14:09, Andrei Alexandrescu via Digitalmars-d
> <digitalmars-d at puremagic.com> wrote:
>> On 5/5/14, 8:19 PM, Manu via Digitalmars-d wrote:
>>>
>>> On 5 May 2014 14:09, Andrei Alexandrescu via Digitalmars-d
>> So it would be nice if you reviewed that code.
>
> I don't really know anything about it... and that's not the point.
> I'm just suggesting by my prior email that some steps like creating an
> experimental space with a lower barrier to entry might encourage
> growth in the number of overall contributors, which I think was the
> basic flavour of the emails leading up to it.

Oh but that's very much the point. "Creating" is the right word (and the 
gerund form is delicious). In order for the "creating" to happen someone 
would need to do the "creation" - and of course the subsequent related 
work. You frame the matter as something "they" should do, when the 
reality is you're very much a part of "they".

The idea of an experimental/unstable package has been discussed a number 
of times. The conclusion I seem to remember is that currently with dub 
available there's a really simple way to experiment with things in a 
comfortable and decentralized way.

That said, it's not impossible that distributing things in an 
"std.experimental" package along with the official distribution gives 
them an extra umph. We could arrange for that to happen. Is this what 
you think would make the difference?

>>> What about AST macros? It seems to me that this is never going to be
>>> explored and there are competing proposals, but I wonder if there's
>>> room for experimental implementations that anyone in the community can
>>> toy with?
>>
>>
>> There would be of course room as long as there's be one or more champions
>> for it. Would that be something you'd be interested in?
>
> I have no horse in that race, but I see it come up all the time, and
> it is something I am passively interested in.

Same here. I'm too busy working in and on other aspects of D (which I 
believe are more important and more urgent) to have another project 
added to my plate. I'd be in your debt if you could clarify to me that 
AST macros are not something you believe I must work on right now.

> There's at least one DIP which received little attention afaict, it's
> an example of something that I think would probably manifest into code
> in an experimental space, but clearly couldn't be accepted as a
> language feature without lots of field time.
> In lieu of an experimental space, there will be no action.

What makes dub inappropriate as an experimental space?

> It's an interesting example actually. I think lots feel the DIP isn't
> really an effective solution, but nobody has the motivation or ideas
> to refine it. The DIP author clearly has no motivation to test it
> experimentally, but perhaps that's what it needs to progress? The
> DIP's shortcomings might be discovered by experimental users in the
> field? It's hard to know, but it's an example of the sort of things
> that may have a stifling effect on progress and contribution.

I think DIPs are a marked improvement over informal discussions on the 
mailing lists. For them to work well, two ingredients are needed: 
champions and reviewers. In some cases that did happen, in others it didn't.

>>> UDA's are super-useful, but they're still lacking the thing to really
>>> set them off, which is the ability to introduce additional boilerplate
>>> code at the site of the attribute.
>>
>>
>> Interesting. Have you worked on a related proposal?
>
> Not really, I've initiated numerous discussions which always seems to
> end at AST macros.
> The only other semi-reasonable idea I've had is the concept that
> tagging mixin templates as UDA's might be a practical angle, but it
> doesn't really make clean sense, creates a syntactic special case and
> also doesn't seem powerful enough, so I'm not with any solid proposal
> that I can imagine within the current language framework.
>
> There are presently bigger issues that keep me awake at night.

Same here. So then I think you'd find it reasonable that I asked you to 
clarify these are not things you believe I need to work on.

What I'm trying to get across here is that your and my role and 
opportunities are very much comparable. Anyone's clout within the D 
community is proportional to the work they're doing on D, and even 
Walter's role would be reduced to an honorific one if he ceased spending 
time working on D.

My pedal is sealed to the floor already. I'm tapped out. Walter's too. 
Meaning that anything work you'd find fit to give us to do would need to 
come at other work's expense. In my case, that would mean overseeing 
four D projects at work and allocators on my free time. Walter's last 
piece of work is interfacing with C++ namespaces, which is very 
necessary for adoption. He and I have gotten pretty good at investing 
our time efficiently, but at some point there's only so many hours in a 
day and we need talented people - people like you - to help making 
things happen.

>>> I reckon there's a good chance that creating a proper platform for
>>> experimental features would also have an advantage for community
>>> building and increase contribution in general. If new contributors can
>>> get in, have some fun, and start trying their ideas while also being
>>> able to share them with the community for feedback without fear
>>> they'll just be shot down and denied after all their work... are they
>>> not more likely to actually make a contribution in the first place?
>>
>>
>> I'd say so, but we'd need initiative and quite a bit of work for such a
>> platform. Would you be interested?
>
> Well, in phobos, just approve 'exp' which has been raised countless
> times. I've got contributions that should be in exp, but instead,
> they're in limbo, and I've lost momentum and motivation since their
> completion is blocked by other issues, and I'm receiving no feedback
> from field testing.

I'm fine with adding an "exp" package to phobos if you believe that 
that's what's stopping things from happening. But do you really?

> What happened to std.serislisation? There was motion there a year or
> so back... I was looking forward to it, and did some minor reviewing
> at the time. I wonder if that's an interesting case study? (I haven't
> looked)

I could ask you the very same thing. What happened to std.serialization? 
Do you want me to work on that as well?

> In the compiler... I may be interested, but I don't have any such
> compiler feature in mind to motivate the effort.
> I have no idea what an experimental feature platform should look like
> in the compiler, and if it were to exist, I have no such feature in
> mind to make use of it, but I have raised examples of others that
> have.

Well then someone else would need to do all that work, so you'd need to 
convince them that it's a good idea.

>>> Once they've made a single contribution of any sort, are they then
>>> more likely to continue making other contributions in the future
>>> (having now taken the time to acclimatise themselves with the
>>> codebase)?
>>
>>
>> I agree - and that applies to you, too.
>
> Sure, but my point... is below.
>
>>> I personally feel the perceived unlikeliness of any experimental
>>> contribution being accepted is a massive deterrence to making compiler
>>> contributions in the first place by anyone other than the most serious
>>> OSS advocates.
>>
>>
>> Contributions make it into the compiler and standard library if and they are
>> properly motivated, well done, and reviewed by the core team which is
>> literally self-appointed. The key to being on the core team is just
>> reviewing contributions. Have you considered looking at submissions that are
>> "hanging around for years"?
>
> Perhaps you misunderstood the point of my post. I've watched people
> make solid contributions that haven't gotten through. That is
> discouraging to others considering starting their own work, and for
> the person who has already put in the effort to continue to do so in
> the future.

Contributions haven't gotten through because there are not enough people 
to review them. People like you. We have an inflation of contributions, 
or if you wish a deflation of reviews.

> The Obj-C thing as an example. Granted, it's a huge feature and has
> extensive implications. The Authors have said themselves that they
> agree it's not 'ready' for inclusion... so, what? It sits and rots?
> I think it needs an experimental place to live and have people make
> use of it for what it is. If it's blocked by other unpopular issues
> that aren't receiving attention, perhaps it's presence will manifest
> the appropriate motivation to see those other unpopular issues
> resolved at some point?

(I assume you refer to http://wiki.dlang.org/DIP43; couldn't find 
associated pull requests.) I don't know. I am not using Objective C, and 
I think it would be more efficient to have people who already have 
Objective C expertise to author and review the contribution. Would I be 
glad to see good interfacing of D with Objective C? Of course!

> My point is that successful OSS seems to be about enabling the
> lowest-friction contribution, and my feeling right now, is that the
> barrier to entry is high. Whether that's true or not I can't really
> comment, but it's a perception, and the mental barrier inhibiting the
> first step is perhaps the most significant barrier of all.

Forgive me but from where I stand you seem completely wrong. There are 
currently 190 open pull requests in our github projects. The primary 
reason that keeps them from being merged is good peer review from people 
like you and me. So currently the bottleneck is on the receiving side, 
not the initiating side of contributions.

You can't claim incompetence on 190 distinct matters. You are fluent in 
D and a good engineer who could tell good design from bad.

> I can't review the Obj-C patch. 1, it's huge, 2, I don't know anything
> about it, other than I'd really like to use D on iOS and that's a
> major hurdle.

Surely there must be something that should catch your fancy among the 
remaining 189 patches.

> Also, the authors themselves said they recognise it's
> not 'ready'. But is it 'experimental'?

Most likely. Have you tried to build their fork?

>>> I have no prior experience with OSS, and it's certainly
>>> a factor that's kept me at arms length.
>>
>>
>> It's as easy as just reviewing stuff. Acta, non verba.
>
> I've never felt I have any particular authority to comment on pulls
> that I have no experience or vested interest in. (I do occasionally
> comment on pull requests that I have some interest or knowledge in)
> I've also had some (hopefully useful) commentary in features that did
> make it; Win64, UDA's, some traits extensions, and lots of bug reports
> and fix confirmations.

That's a great start, thanks. Keep them coming.

> I'm plenty vocal and active on things I do feel I know about, but
> they're often pretty radical, unpopular, and rarely come even close to
> turning into code. I'm pretty certain that nothing left on my short
> list that I personally *really* care about will ever get pulled, even
> if I did do the work.
> There's a perfectly good pull there for not-virtual-by-default. No
> amount of beating will get that horse through, despite almost
> unanimous community support. That was... extremely discouraging, to
> say the least.

What can we do (short of pulling that) to be more encouraging of you to 
do good work?


Andrei