The Problem With DIPs

[deadalnix via Digitalmars-d]

On Wednesday, 8 June 2016 at 19:59:27 UTC, Walter Bright wrote:
> On 6/7/2016 1:32 PM, Jack Stouffer wrote:
>> a lousy 28% of DIPs are either definitively closed or accepted.
>
> I understand that is frustrating. It happens to mine as well, 
> though I am less bothered by it.
>
> It's a question of framing.
>
> Consider the regression list:
>
> https://issues.dlang.org/buglist.cgi?bug_severity=regression&bug_status=NEW&bug_status=ASSIGNED&bug_status=REOPENED&list_id=208862&query_format=advanced
>
> There are currently 34 issues on it, where we implemented a 
> feature and inadvertently broke something. There are constant 
> complaints on the forum that we have not "fully" implemented 
> things.
>

I agree 100% with the sentiment. We have way too many 95% things. 
On the other hand, many DIPs are not about implement this new 
groundbreaking thing, but about tightening loose screws.

A good chunk of the problem is that development is made using the 
wack a mole methodology rather than a more principled approach. 
Having a DIP specifying at least the intended end goal would be 
beneficial. Such DIPs would for instance include DIP27/28/30 that 
change very little of the behavior, but fix a typesystem hole and 
provide a principled approach to what we already do.