Is run.d going to be expand for runtime and the phobos library?

[Joseph Rushton Wakeling]

On Sunday, 14 June 2020 at 16:07:16 UTC, Seb wrote:
> While we could have done a separation for rdmd which you struck 
> done a while ago [1] which btw lead to the only two people 
> interested in contributing to rdmd loosing their interest.
>
> ...
>
> [1] https://github.com/dlang/tools/pull/344

It's a bit tangential to the main thrust of discussion here, but 
I'd just like it on the record that the decision on that PR had 
nothing to do with why I didn't continue to contribute to rdmd.  
I just had a lot of other things keeping me busy (and still do).

Andrei and I had a very constructive conversation at DConf later 
that year where he suggested, and I agreed, that the way forward 
with rdmd's issues was not to refactor rdmd but to bring more of 
its functionality inside the D frontend (of which the main things 
would presumably be the search for the files to compile, and the 
running of the compiled executable).

I don't know what if any progress has been made in that respect 
but it still sounds the most reasonable way to clean things up 
and avoid duplication of effort between the codebases.

BTW, I think it is important to listen carefully to Andrei's 
broader feedback here.  A lot of the reason why I got hands on 
with rdmd was because I was seeing a lot of what I felt were 
problematic development decisions, and I wanted to clean up the 
codebase and put in place much more rigorous tests to help avoid 
those problems in future.

I know it's not easy to hear feedback like this from someone who 
isn't hands-on at the coalface alongside you, but it really feels 
like far too often work gets accepted because "something must be 
done!" and in order to encourage the person who is stepping up to 
do the work, rather than asking the harder question of, is it 
being done the right way, and is that work really producing the 
right long-term outcome.