The forked elephant in the room

[IGotD-]

On Monday, 15 January 2024 at 09:46:11 UTC, Atila Neves wrote:
>
> I personally am going to continue working on a spec [1] for Adam
> Ruppe's work [2] on string interpolation. I think he has done 
> great
> work and see no reason to not make a D a better language 
> because of
> this fork. It was in great part due to his objections to 
> DIP1027 that
> it did not get accepted and his insight on the feature have been
> invaluable.
>
>
> We hope that in time the contributors to OpenD will decide to 
> lend
> their time instead to the D language.
>

Is there no bottom how low you can go? This is like a manager who 
gives a former a employee an astronomical raise after giving the 
notice and the new job is waiting. At that point the manager can 
give you any amount because it doesn't mean anything, the manager 
just do it in order to mess with the mind of the former employee.

Also if you believe that the fork was made just because 
disagreement about DIP1036 and DIP 1027 you are mistaken. The 
dissatisfaction with the D management and how the project is run 
has been growing for several years if not over a decade. It is 
rather surprising that a serious fork wasn't made earlier.

If you think that stopping the fork is going to help, think 
again. The behaviour of the D management is endemic and cannot be 
changed because much is linked to your personalities, much to the 
personally of Walter. For me the desire to remove binary literals 
was the wakeup call for me that something is not quite right and 
it cannot be fixed.

Now I cannot stop the D project to include things from openD and 
vice versa and I see no problems with that. However, trying to 
infiltrate the openD in order to derail it or influence it is 
benign and will lead to missed opportunities.

If you have left over work from before the fork, get it done. 
After that, good bye!