How can we make it easier to experiment with the compiler?

[Ola Fosheim Grostad]

On Wednesday, 26 May 2021 at 14:21:06 UTC, rikki cattermole wrote:
> I actually have an article on code quality and how I measure it.
>
> https://cattermole.co.nz/article/code_qual


I like your motto: Code is documentation!

> But the important list I use (for which dmd fails completely 
> at):
>
> 1. Organized in a way that reflects the idea/concept.
> 2. Seperate concepts, seperate areas (files/areas of a file).
> 3. Grouping of resource usage
> 4. Depth from purpose
> 5. Naming
>
> 1, 2 and 4 is what this part of the thread is all about.

But, my main issues are not these, these are symptoms. My main 
concerns are the consequenses of the ubderlying cause for these 
symptoms. The real challenge is not having a clean way of 
introducing new components ( like an IR between front and backend 
or a new solver related to the type system ). There is missing an 
analysis of where the compiler should allow extensions (compile 
time) with ease.

That prevents experimentation, and lowers interest in 
participation. LDC has achieved a lot and it is, I think, because 
they could specialize on THEIR piece, and take pride in 
maintaining it in a (I can only assume) busy life. They can also 
make their own decisions, so there is a sense of autonomous 
control, which is a high motivation factor (generally speaking).