It makes me sick!

[FoxyBrown via Digitalmars-d-learn]

On Saturday, 29 July 2017 at 19:51:30 UTC, Adam D. Ruppe wrote:
> On Saturday, 29 July 2017 at 19:26:03 UTC, FoxyBrown wrote:
>> Also, equating dmd to an audio program or a clip art program 
>> that is designed to load any and all files in it's install dir 
>> is moronic too.
>
> I like to add files to the dmd install directory to expand its 
> "just works" library.
>
> I was bitten by this change too. I'm of the opinion that 
> splitting std.datetime was a waste of time and also that the 
> package.d feature is misdesigned. It should ALSO allow any 
> other file to be passed with the module declaration that 
> matches... you know, like every other module in the language. 
> Why it got this bizarre special requirement is beyond me.
>
> If it did, then we could easily enough just leave the old file. 
> But no, it requires the new one, but then prolly on efficiency 
> grounds, doesn't check it first meaning the old one can 
> silently conflict. Ugh.
>
> But the fix here is to fix the bizarre package.d design. Don't 
> break the zip for cases like mine where adding files is a key 
> feature of it.

I don't mind the issue as long as it is stated clearly what must 
be done(e.g., simply add "requires cleaned installed directory"). 
What pisses me off more more than anything is the asinine people 
defending the behavior as if it is acceptable and that it is the 
users fault to know that the behavior.

Many programs I use can be upgraded without issue by copying over 
the data files. Dmd did not have this program until recently and 
so, because it isn't stated it is a problem, how the hell is the 
user suppose to know that? Specially when it worked correct the 
first time, the second time, the third time, etc.