I approved DIP1036e

[GrimMaple]

I was trying to refrain from this forum, but oh boy.

On Wednesday, 17 January 2024 at 10:58:44 UTC, Dibyendu Majumdar 
wrote:
> In all the discussions, Walter always argues technical points, 
> he never abuses or name calls people or attacks them personally.

In the same sense, you can argue that Ferrari F40 is a bad car, 
because it can't go off road much. It's a perfectly technical 
standpoint that a lot of other cars implement - you have Jeeps 
and Land Rovers that do a much better job offroading. On the 
other side, you can argue that Land Rovers are bad cars, because 
they don't go very fast. And that's a perfectly technical 
standpoint that a lot of other cars implement -- for example, the 
Ferrari F40. You see what I did there?

In a world where different goals are possible, you can always 
find a technical point to argue. If it's `@nogc` it's hard to 
use. If it's backed by the GC, then it's not `@nogc`. And I have 
repeatedly stated this - this "technical" arguing is just used to 
stall useful contributions that Walter personally dislikes, 
doesn't understand, or doesn't care to understand. It took what, 
half a year of arguing and an entire fork for Walter to finally 
step in and _do something_? Imagine if we didn't have to do all 
that and instead the job was just done. Would be a dream to live 
in.

I would even go as far as argue that "technical debate" is the 
root of all evil. Unless there is a set of rules you can always 
go back to. Eg, if D had a rule something like "GC is not an 
arguing point", there would be less arguing. If D embraced GC and 
centered itself around it, there would be less arguing. If there 
were any guidlines to contributing, there would be less arguing. 
In my humble opinion, we shouldn't spend our lives arguing about 
"technical points", unless there is a clear error in 
implementation. Instead, we should focus on some goal, which D 
doesn't even have in the first place.