Future of D

[Atila Neves]

On Tuesday, 31 October 2023 at 09:28:40 UTC, Richard (Rikki) 
Andrew Cattermole wrote:
> 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.

Sorry about that, I clearly dropped the ball. Want to restart?

>
> 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).

I also did some R&D recently, and as soon as I'm done with 
editions I want to talk to him about exactly this. And Timon, 
probably.

> 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.

I don't know enough about the issue to opine, unfortunately.

> 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".

Valid. The best case scenario is aligning contributors' interests 
and time with what's good for the language/library/ecosystem/etc.