Future of D

[Richard (Rikki) Andrew Cattermole]

On 31/10/2023 9:28 PM, Atila Neves wrote:
> There's plenty of work to be done in Phobos, the issue is finding 
> contributors. We need replacements for std.{json,xml}. I wouldn't mind 
> replacing/updating std.socket either. Robert Schadek's made the case 
> more than once that we need more file formats in there too, which I 
> agree with. Then there's the fact that we're currently concentrating on 
> finishing/stabilising instead of adding new features.
> 
> The prerequisite right now in my opinion is finishing allocators and 
> moving them out of experimental. I don't think it makes sense to start 
> work on Phobos v2 before v1 is done, and it isn't. It doesn't help that 
> I need to figure out how to include the library's evolution in the 
> proposal for editions.

Two years ago you said you would talk to me about what needed to be done 
with std.experimental.allocators, you have not.

I was motivated at the time to see them completed. I no longer am.

Paul Backus has currently taken up the task with some feedback from 
myself and is doing R&D on what an allocator API should look like (as 
the current one has some mighty big problems with it).

The problem has not been finding contributors, its aligning the window 
of time when a contributor is willing and motivated to do something and 
when leadership is receptive of it.

I am reminded about std.uni's table generator. You said one thing on one 
previous PR, and on mine after I had done the work wouldn't say anything 
affirmative about it going in. What is absolutely sad about this is 
after it was in I heard that Symmetry were starting to get uneasy about 
the tables being so old and were thinking about replacing the entire thing.

There is much to learn from before going forward positively and for a 
lot of previous contributors that has been: "Not worth it, they are not 
receptive or encouraging of my contributions".