Three people out of four dislike SDL

[Saurabh Das via Digitalmars-d]

On Tuesday, 1 December 2015 at 13:40:59 UTC, terchestor wrote:
> On Tuesday, 1 December 2015 at 04:38:59 UTC, Saurabh Das wrote:
>> On Monday, 30 November 2015 at 22:59:04 UTC, retard wrote:
>>> Just voted at 
>>> http://www.easypolls.net/poll.html?p=565587f4e4b0b3955a59fb67 
>>> - 140 votes, 75% are against SDL. That should count for 
>>> something? Sonke?
>>
>> As Sonke had pointed out in the other thread, there was a long 
>> process before SDL was adopted and the community was kept 
>> informed of it all through. I think everybody in this 
>> community had plenty of time and enough number of 
>> opportunities to object to SDL if they had any issues with it. 
>> See http://forum.dlang.org/post/n36gvd$1lia$1@digitalmars.com
>>
>> It's unfair to criticise SDL at this point after it's been 
>> implemented when there was ample opportunity to object 
>> earlier. It's not a Douglas Adamsesque "notes were kept in a 
>> basement and accessible only after flipping a dice" scenario - 
>> in this case, requests for comments were posted in this very 
>> forum, on GitHub and elsewhere.
>
> So now that the work is done we're stuck with it forever? Even 
> though it solves the wrong problem and we're better off without 
> it? How does that argument even work?
>
>> Given that JSON is always going to be supported, just use JSON 
>> if you are so uncomfortable with SDL.
>
> In a fair world the default should be JSON and SDL should be 
> phased out.
>
> I do appreciate that people are nice with Sonke-who clearly 
> botched this one. If Walter made this one everybody would 
> threaten to leave D forever and want his head on a spike. But 
> the mistake must be fixed anyway.

I didn't say that it should or should not be fixed - that is a 
separate discussion entirely. Personally I don't find SDL so hot, 
but I'm okay with using it if needed. It's just a config format 
after all. Why does it evoke such a strong reaction? SDL or JSON 
both are perfectly fine.

My point is that it's unfair to criticise Sonke now - who has 
kept the community abreast of the proposed changes and did not 
get any feedback on this during the during the many calls for 
comments and suggestions to be now told that 75% of the community 
doesn't like the change. Where was 75% of the community when the 
change was in the open for discussion and amendment?

Development doesn't happen in an isolated shell. Timely and 
thought out feedback and criticism is much required. Sonke sought 
it and unfortunately received none of that from us in this 
matter, so the fault is equally ours.