[Dlang-internal] -dip1000 discussion

[Olivier FAURE via Dlang-internal]

On Sunday, 29 January 2017 at 12:12:04 UTC, Walter Bright wrote:
> This stuff has been around for a long time, so has -dip1000. 
> There was recent other thread on it in this n.g., see the 
> thread entitled "DIP1000 discussion and testing".
>
> D desperately needs a way to guarantee safe code. I'm 
> interested only in getting a workable scheme implemented, not 
> putting things off for another year of nothing happening.
>
> Nobody is being shut down for proposing or discussing 
> alternatives. Anyone who wants to, please feel free. That's 
> what this n.g. is for.

Alright, this is becoming legitimately infuriating. Earlier I 
posted:

> I don't want my criticism to be considered as "problems" that 
> should be solved. This ties back to what I was saying: it seems 
> you think that the major reason I disagree with you is that I 
> don't understand the subject well enough. Even if it's true 
> (and I think by now I have demonstrated that I've done quite a 
> bit of research before posting here), it's still annoying and 
> counter-productive.

Look, I'm saying that you're either dismissing my points or 
ignoring them completely. You read that. Yet you didn't even 
comment on it. This feels incredibly disrespectful. Like, not 
responding to my remarks about D is one thing, but not responding 
to my remark about how I'd like to be treated seriously feels 
like a superior level of disrespect.

I'm trying to tell you that I want to be treated seriously, and 
you act like you haven't heard anything. You don't have to agree 
with me at all, but at least **ACKNOWLEDGE WHAT I'm SAYING, 
DAMMIT**.

> Nobody is being shut down for proposing or discussing 
> alternatives. Anyone who wants to, please feel free. That's 
> what this n.g. is for.

There's a difference between "not shutting anyone down" and "not 
encouraging things to go in one specific direction at the 
detriment of others". You're pushing dip1000; it's being 
implemented right now, and you're making it clear that it's going 
to happen no matter what other people think. That means that any 
non-dip1000 proposal is going to face an uphill battle, because 
it's has to go against a proposal that's already being there.

You didn't explicitly shut down MS's proposal. You did so 
implicitly, and unilaterally.