Walter and Andrei and community relationship management

[Nick B via Digitalmars-d]

On Thursday, 6 April 2017 at 19:17:53 UTC, Walter Bright wrote:

> There's one big difference. The proposal I put forth is fairly 
> complete, and I am well along implementing it. deadalnix's 
> requires a great deal of further work just to figure out what 
> it means - as presented, it is not much more than an idea.
>
> Nor is it a simple idea. It will upend D's type system. It'll 
> likely affect much of the semantic code in the compiler, and 
> will require a lot of retrofitting in Phobos. Who knows how 
> extensive that will be.

I understand. It was a major change, and you likely felt the 
risks were not worth it.
>
> I don't know any language process that would accept it as it 
> stands - it would get bounced back with "needs more work".

Yes, but if you had detailed which areas, he might of been more 
receptive.

> Somebody has to work on it to move it forward - who do you 
> propose should do it? We don't have a team anywhere whose job 
> it is to create detailed proposals based on other peoples' 
> ideas (which appear in the forum every day). Things rarely move 
> forward unless a champion for it self-selects with the will and 
> motivation to push it relentlessly.

That sets a high bar. Can you give an example when this has 
worked well, or have they been mostly minor changes?
>
> (The general attitude of the C++ committee is if no champion 
> emerges for a proposal that is willing to fix it and address 
> all concerns about it and fight for it, then the proposal is 
> not worth considering. It works for them.)

So this is your and Andreis approach? If so, perhaps you want to 
document it, so everyone understands.

> If you or anyone else wants to be the champion for deadalnix's 
> idea, I encourage you to do so. Collaborate here or in any way 
> that works for you. I'm not going to shut you or anyone down on 
> such discussions. I have already done a review of it and 
> identified where it needs more work, so the next step is up to 
> you.

No, its his big idea, and I don't understand it well enough to 
push it.
But I also think that your vision of the language, seems to be 
fluid at present, with the requirements to support a GC, ARC, and 
the ability to remove the run-time. Again perhaps you and Andrei 
want to confirm this direction.

My intent for this post, was to bring to both your attentions, 
how this was perceived by the outsiders/community, and a 
perceived (if incorrect) double standard. That was all.

> (I also did not submit it as a DIP because the DIP process at 
> the time was in limbo due to Dicebot exiting it. Now that Mike 
> Parker is the new DIP czar, things should be moving again.)

Good to hear.