The Problem With DIPs

[Pie? via Digitalmars-d]

On Wednesday, 8 June 2016 at 21:15:20 UTC, deadalnix wrote:
> On Wednesday, 8 June 2016 at 19:59:27 UTC, Walter Bright wrote:
>> On 6/7/2016 1:32 PM, Jack Stouffer wrote:
>>> a lousy 28% of DIPs are either definitively closed or 
>>> accepted.
>>
>> I understand that is frustrating. It happens to mine as well, 
>> though I am less bothered by it.
>>
>> It's a question of framing.
>>
>> Consider the regression list:
>>
>> https://issues.dlang.org/buglist.cgi?bug_severity=regression&bug_status=NEW&bug_status=ASSIGNED&bug_status=REOPENED&list_id=208862&query_format=advanced
>>
>> There are currently 34 issues on it, where we implemented a 
>> feature and inadvertently broke something. There are constant 
>> complaints on the forum that we have not "fully" implemented 
>> things.
>>
>
> I agree 100% with the sentiment. We have way too many 95% 
> things. On the other hand, many DIPs are not about implement 
> this new groundbreaking thing, but about tightening loose 
> screws.
>
> A good chunk of the problem is that development is made using 
> the wack a mole methodology rather than a more principled 
> approach. Having a DIP specifying at least the intended end 
> goal would be beneficial. Such DIPs would for instance include 
> DIP27/28/30 that change very little of the behavior, but fix a 
> typesystem hole and provide a principled approach to what we 
> already do.

Maybe you should make a DIP for that? ;)