Monorepo?

[Mathias LANG]

On Tuesday, 14 February 2023 at 06:55:50 UTC, John Colvin wrote:
>
> In what way would they step on each others toes (more than they 
> do separately)? A single repo solves a real problem, which is 
> all the PITA caused when doing cross-cutting changes and an 
> overly complex developer experience full of silly pitfalls and 
> careful juggling (oh, right, I need to git pull on the other 
> repo as well, maybe? Which dmd is this building with again? Oh 
> damn I forgot to switch branches in 3 places at once). Putting 
> aside status quo bias, any separation should also solve 
> something comparable.

Agreed that the developer experience is currently sub-par.

The way I see the monorepo reasoning, it is attempting to solve 
systemic problems that surface when a few dimensions (at least 
projects & members, perhaps others) reach a very large scale. 
When you have more than 10k developers, employing someone to save 
them 10 minutes each per day is actually a 10x improvement.

What we will mostly loose by having a monorepo is a visible 
interface between core language and standard library. The 
interface will be less apparent, and easier to break. We have 
very concrete evidence that this is something that leads to 
problems (Tango/Phobos), and the separation exists today because 
of this.

In recent meetings, Walter complained that the DMD test suite 
depends on Phobos, and he's right. Fixing this problem would 
alleviate some of the issues you're describing it. LDC fixed that 
issue, and I think GDC did too, but DMD didn't yet.