Idea #1 on integrating RC with GC

[Ola Fosheim Grøstad" <ola.fosheim.grostad+dlang at gmail.com>]

On Monday, 10 February 2014 at 04:22:32 UTC, Andrei Alexandrescu 
wrote:
> Your thoughts are appreciated (all 6 of them in as many 
> sentences). There is something to be said, however, about 
> armchair quarterbacking and holier-than-thou kibitzing on what 
> others should be doing. This community is as close as it gets 
> to a meritocracy, so if you think you know what's good, you do 
> good. If you want your stupendously many "I think"s to carry 
> weight, follow them with some "I do"s as well. Hop on github. 
> This endless walk through your knowledge base just isn't useful.

Good job, my initial response to Manu was a critique of going Ad 
Hominem and you as a person time and time again fail in that 
regard in many discussions. You do however deserve a round of ad 
hominem because you as one of the two people who are in a 
position to communicate the project vision and set forth 
MEASURABLE goals that can be tracked and evaluated, but you 
refuse to do so.

All talk of meritocracy is essentially hypocrisy because all 
projects need to establish boundaries and a goal post, and you 
fail miserably in that regard. That's why D is a slow mover. 
"This endless walk through [my] knowledgebase" is of course not a 
walk through my knowledgebase, it is an assessment of the project 
that YOU FAIL to attempt to do. It is my attempt to try to figure 
out where this project is heading.

You are right, I should not have to do it. YOU SHOULD DO IT. AND 
PRESENT IT. That way people won't be let down.

I like the initial vision Walter Bright put forth years ago, that 
is to make a better C++. That has somehow evolved into making a 
compiled C#. Can you please ASSESS that.

You and Walter Bright are leads.

I expect any project and you to put forth:

1. A clear vision that establish a firm boundary.
2. A small set of clear measurable goals that give the project 
direction.
3. A list of points stating what the project is not going to 
address in the immediate future.

This endless walk through what is wrong with D project management 
just isn't useful, because you don't want to listen.