Handling constructive criticism

[Jarrett Billingsley]

"Bill Baxter" <dnewsgroup at billbaxter.com> wrote in message 
news:fu5u61$1m4u$1 at digitalmars.com...

>> I surrendered long ago. I can't even be bothered reading those post you
>> talk of now. Nothing will come of them. Walter won't change. D will 
>> fester
>> on for a while but all the good things that it could have been will not 
>> see
>> light of day. D is already lot better than the alternatives and that 
>> seems
>> to be good enough for Walter. Mediocracy rules. There is no desire to aim
>> higher.
>
> The current problem seems to be the opposite to me.  The problem *is* that 
> Walter doesn't think D is good enough, and so he think he needs to add 
> ingredient C to woo large-systems developers or ingredient P to try to 
> leap ahead of the competition.  If anything he's aiming too high, into 
> territory that no one knows anything about, and which may pan out to be 
> ultimately not so useful.  Or it may pan out to be fantastic.  I don't 
> think anyone knows.

I'm sure this is what you're getting at, but it's both.  Because W keeps 
adding feature C (lots, and lots, of feature C.  forever.) and thinks about 
feature P, feature M, and feature T don't get any love and so fall into 
decay.

It'd be great if development on featured C and P just _STOPPED_ for once and 
if we could get some other features working _properly_.  You can't build a 
house in a tidal zone without a hell of a foundataion.