DIP10005: Dependency-Carrying Declarations is now available for community feedback

[Andrei Alexandrescu via Digitalmars-d]

On 01/03/2017 04:28 AM, Paulo Pinto wrote:
> Looking from the outside, and watching what was reached from 2016
> roadmap, it is clear the DIPs evaluated thus dar aren't about fixing the
> library or runtime issues that prevent D's adoption at large as a
> systems programming language.
>
> Meanwhile Swift, Go and Rust have a clear roadmap how their future is
> supposed to look like, and drive just in that direction, with C++ taking
> all remaining good D ideas.
>
> This DIP discussion and the latest ones about splitting the runtime
> again, don't do anything to earn D any credibility it might still have
> left.

Thanks for taking the time to write this. All languages have an 
improvement process, which runs as a background task that is not always 
correlated with the current principal objectives of the language's 
leadership. We have recently improved our DIP process, but positive 
examples of compelling DIPs are missing. We were facing the problem that 
upcoming DIPs, if unguided, could create busywork for the leadership on 
trivial matters. Whether approved, rejected, or put on hold, DIP1005 
will serve as a yardstick for future DIPs regarding the necessary work 
involved in defining the problem, investigating it as rigorously as 
possible, comparing with alternatives, and defining the feature.

Walter and I do agree that the DIP is ahead of its time because (a) 
there are more pressing and more important matters to keep me busy, and 
(b) encapsulation in D is a larger topic that we haven't yet put front 
and center because of (a).

For DIP1005 I invite interested collaborators to contact me about future 
iterations; it is important for the matter of encapsulation and also for 
the meta-challenge of setting an example for other DIPs to follow. Thanks.


Andrei