DIP1000 observation

[Bruce Carneal]

On Monday, 26 August 2024 at 15:42:28 UTC, Dukc wrote:
> Bruce Carneal kirjoitti 25.8.2024 klo 20.55:
>> The lesson I take from the DIP 1000 history is that we need 
>> something that is simpler to explain, something that is much 
>> easier to use correctly, something that models the problem 
>> more clearly.
>
> You mean Robert's Simple Safe D.
...
>
> The question is, what are we really annoyed about with DIP1000?
...

My observation was/is that DIP1000 is overly complex for the 
value provided.  This manifests in several ways.  There are the, 
seemingly never ending, holes that get patched.  There's the 
difficulty in explaining how it can be used to full benefit 
(apart from Timon, and maybe Paul, I don't trust anyone's 
explanation of what's going on in an even moderately complex 
dip1000 scenario and, frankly, I'd rather rewrite code than trust 
even those gurus).  There's the methodology being employed 
wherein we apparently are trying to "prove" *safety* correctness 
by observing a fall off in bug reports (as opposed to attributing 
any fall off to people just moving on).  There's the ...

And finally, on a more positive note, there's the belief that we 
can do much better with a clean sheet design, something with a 
different model.

There are three paths forward.  In my order of preference these 
are:  1) rethink the whole thing from scratch  2) drop dip1000 
and just live with gc/@trusted/... and 3) keep patching and 
whacking and trying to convince the D community that DIP1000 is 
worth it.