The new std.process is ready for review

[Don]

On Sunday, 24 February 2013 at 07:58:40 UTC, Andrei Alexandrescu 
wrote:
> On 2/24/13 4:58 AM, H. S. Teoh wrote:
>> I find this rather frustrating... sometimes it feels like 
>> Phobos is
>> suffering from premature standardization - we have a module 
>> with a
>> design that isn't very good, but just because it somehow got 
>> put into
>> Phobos, now it has to stick, no matter what.
>
> It's a good sign - growing pains and acquiring users and all. 
> Python broke even "hello, world" from one major release to 
> another.
>
> Andrei

I don't think this is true at all.
With respect -- I think Walter has absolutely no clue about 
backwards compatibility and deprecation.

Here's how it should work:
1. You make promises  (about future compatibility).
2. You keep those promises.

Walter tries to do (2). without doing (1). The result is the 
insanity we've had for years. It means an unpredictable, 
unplanned set of often undesirable behaviour is preserved, that 
doesn't help stability anyway.

We need to do (1).

Can we please stop pretending this is acceptable?
It's not "growing pains" or anything like that. It's a basic 
misunderstanding of stability.