We are forking D

[H. S. Teoh]

On Tue, Jan 09, 2024 at 01:11:39PM -0800, Walter Bright via Digitalmars-d wrote:
> On 1/9/2024 9:42 AM, H. S. Teoh wrote:
> > From a technical standpoint, D has no parallels that I know of -- it
> > comes very close to my ideal of what a programming language should
> > be.  But the way it's managed leaves a lot to be desired.  It would
> > be a pity for this beautiful language to languish when under a
> > different style of management it could be flourishing and taking
> > over the world.
> 
> Thank you for the kind compliments about D. Perhaps one reason it is
> such a nice language is because I say "no" to most enhancements? D
> would have version algebra and macros if it was a committee. Some
> features are great ideas, until you've used them for 10 years, and
> come to the realization that they aren't so good of an idea.
> 
> Aesthetic appeal is a big deal. D has got to look good on the screen,
> because after all, we spend most "programming" time just staring at
> the code. I remember once attending a C++ conference where the
> presenter had slides of his innovative ideas, and I had the thought
> that there was no way to format that or rewrite it so it looked good.
> I've had that experience many times with C++.

It's C++, aesthetic appeal isn't even on the list. :-D


[...]
> The end goal for me with D is that it will no longer need me.

Wonderful!

The way it's going right now, however, appears to be in the complete
opposite direction.


> As for Phobos, I am not involved with it directly. There has been a
> sequence of people in charge of it, but that hasn't worked out too
> well. But there is a core team of 35 people (though some are inactive)
> that controls what goes into it:
> 
> https://github.com/orgs/dlang/teams/team-phobos
> 
> They have the authority to decide what goes in Phobos or not. I'm open
> to nominations to that team.

I'm on that list. ;-)  But I haven't contributed for a long while now.
Currently there isn't much incentive for me to do so.  The barrier of
entry is too high, both for contributor and reviewer -- even for a D
veteran like me, if I can say so myself.  The requirements are
disproportionate for small changes, needless to say for big changes. And
there are a lot of unstated, unwritten expectations.  I don't have the
energy / patience to second guess what's acceptable and what's not, when
I could be writing code for my own projects instead.


> Anybody can bring attention on the n.g. to any PR that is being
> overlooked.

And they're unlikely to get any better response.


All of this could be justifiable. There may be solid technical reasons
behind it all.  But the message that would-be contributors are getting
is unfortunately not inviting more of them to join in.  So this
situation persists.  It is what it is.


T

-- 
Change is inevitable, except from a vending machine.