This is why I don't use D.

[Laurent Tréguier]

On Thursday, 6 September 2018 at 16:27:38 UTC, Everlast wrote:
>
> You totally missed the point.
>
> The point with 1 package only was to demonstrate how easy it is 
> to maintain and that it theoretically would have the long 
> longevity. When one has an infinite number of packages then 
> every package(or almost everyone) would rot very quickly.
>
> I didn't say there should actually only be one package, as that 
> is absurd. What I said was that because D has no organizational 
> structure to focus work on a fewer number of better maintained 
> and designed packages there is a ton of shit out there for D 
> that doesn't work but there is no way of knowing and not always 
> an easy fix because it takes time to understand the code or it 
> is simply defunct.
>
> This is not rocket science...

I know that you wanted to talk about easier maintenance. But what 
exactly is that D organization going to do ? Prevent people from 
making more packages and force them to work on theirs instead ?
No matter if there is an organization, there will always be 
unofficial packages going stale. You sound like it's going to be 
a magical solution.