www.digitalmars.com         C & C++   DMDScript  

digitalmars.D - Dip Discussion

reply Illuminati <Joe Masons.com> writes:
Maybe for each Dip it would be nice to have a discussion or 
comments section exposed in some way. A full fledged subforum(per 
DIP) would be better so contrasting threads could be followed 
easier.
Aug 28 2016
next sibling parent reply Dicebot <public dicebot.lv> writes:
On Sunday, 28 August 2016 at 18:17:51 UTC, Illuminati wrote:

 Maybe for each Dip it would be nice to have a discussion or 
 comments section exposed in some way. A full fledged 
 subforum(per DIP) would be better so contrasting threads could 
 be followed easier.


For now intention is to aggregate all discussion threads / 
reviews / mail list archives via links in DIP itself. Thanks for 
reminding about it btw, I have just added 
https://github.com/dlang/DIPs/blob/master/DIPs/DIP1000.md#reviews

Adding something more complicated can be considered but we don't 
have that much DIP related information traffic yet to make extra 
complexity worthwhile.
Aug 28 2016
parent reply Illuminati <Joe Masons.com> writes:
On Sunday, 28 August 2016 at 18:43:05 UTC, Dicebot wrote:

 On Sunday, 28 August 2016 at 18:17:51 UTC, Illuminati wrote:

 Maybe for each Dip it would be nice to have a discussion or 
 comments section exposed in some way. A full fledged 
 subforum(per DIP) would be better so contrasting threads could 
 be followed easier.


 For now intention is to aggregate all discussion threads / 
 reviews / mail list archives via links in DIP itself. Thanks 
 for reminding about it btw, I have just added 
 https://github.com/dlang/DIPs/blob/master/DIPs/DIP1000.md#reviews

 Adding something more complicated can be considered but we 
 don't have that much DIP related information traffic yet to 
 make extra complexity worthwhile.


I don't know how you can make such an assertion. It's like saying 
that if there were no humans around to breath there would be no 
oxygen. You have to build something first for it to be used and 
grow, not the other way around, which is illogical. People can't 
use something if it doesn't exist, so you can't claim that for it 
to be created(put in to existence) that first people need to use 
it("have traffic"). The better you build something the more 
people will use it. If you can't build it well then no need to 
beat around the bush.
Aug 28 2016
next sibling parent Lodovico Giaretta <lodovico giaretart.net> writes:
On Sunday, 28 August 2016 at 22:16:47 UTC, Illuminati wrote:

 On Sunday, 28 August 2016 at 18:43:05 UTC, Dicebot wrote:

 For now intention is to aggregate all discussion threads / 
 reviews / mail list archives via links in DIP itself. Thanks 
 for reminding about it btw, I have just added 
 https://github.com/dlang/DIPs/blob/master/DIPs/DIP1000.md#reviews

 Adding something more complicated can be considered but we 
 don't have that much DIP related information traffic yet to 
 make extra complexity worthwhile.


 I don't know how you can make such an assertion. It's like 
 saying that if there were no humans around to breath there 
 would be no oxygen. You have to build something first for it to 
 be used and grow, not the other way around, which is illogical. 
 People can't use something if it doesn't exist, so you can't 
 claim that for it to be created(put in to existence) that first 
 people need to use it("have traffic"). The better you build 
 something the more people will use it. If you can't build it 
 well then no need to beat around the bush.


We have official threads in General and in Announce where people 
discuss about DIPs. The traffic on those threads is not so high 
as to justify having a dedicated channel for them. Being where 
they currently are is sufficient for the current needs.

So I have to agree with Dicebot.
Aug 28 2016
prev sibling parent reply Dicebot <public dicebot.lv> writes:
On Sunday, 28 August 2016 at 22:16:47 UTC, Illuminati wrote:

 I don't know how you can make such an assertion. It's like 
 saying that if there were no humans around to breath there 
 would be no oxygen. You have to build something first for it to 
 be used and grow, not the other way around, which is illogical. 
 People can't use something if it doesn't exist, so you can't 
 claim that for it to be created(put in to existence) that first 
 people need to use it("have traffic"). The better you build 
 something the more people will use it. If you can't build it 
 well then no need to beat around the bush.


I am saying that any system does not come for free and has both 
setup and ongoing costs. It has to be justified by the fact that 
existing approach doesn't work anymore, "it is cool" or even "it 
is better" is not enough. D workforce is simply not large enough 
to afford commitments of limited importance.
Aug 28 2016
parent reply Illuminati <Joe Masons.com> writes:
On Monday, 29 August 2016 at 00:10:15 UTC, Dicebot wrote:

 On Sunday, 28 August 2016 at 22:16:47 UTC, Illuminati wrote:

 I don't know how you can make such an assertion. It's like 
 saying that if there were no humans around to breath there 
 would be no oxygen. You have to build something first for it 
 to be used and grow, not the other way around, which is 
 illogical. People can't use something if it doesn't exist, so 
 you can't claim that for it to be created(put in to existence) 
 that first people need to use it("have traffic"). The better 
 you build something the more people will use it. If you can't 
 build it well then no need to beat around the bush.


 I am saying that any system does not come for free and has both 
 setup and ongoing costs. It has to be justified by the fact 
 that existing approach doesn't work anymore, "it is cool" or 
 even "it is better" is not enough. D workforce is simply not 
 large enough to afford commitments of limited importance.


I don't disagree with the "practical" aspects, but to know if it 
is worth it requires far more actual facts than suppositions and 
guesses(not saying you are completely guessing).  For example, 
there might be someone out there willing to contribute the time 
and do all the work but if no effort is made to made those 
connections they cannot happen.

So, I am trying to change your attitude, not necessarily the 
outcome. Do you not agree it is better to have a positive 
approach like "Yes, we need to get some type of proper discussion 
format going on to maximize involvement, we just need to figure 
that out"?

Then the figuring out part is just a "problem" to be solved at 
some point by someone... and that is easy("time and money" which 
is something the world has a lot of).

But if there is a negative/pessimistic/skeptical approach, things 
simply cannot progress and evolve.

So, I'd rather hear something "Yes, great idea... we will work on 
it when we get a chance" as it lets me know that the proper 
attitudes are in effect that will help D go somewhere. If I here 
"No, that's too hard... too much work. Not interested", etc. It 
lets me know that the fight is an uphill battle and it makes me 
not want to be part of that negative approach. Make sense?

For example, I would be willing to contribute if I 
thought/believed my contributions were going to be worthwhile. I 
am not alone in this, everyone is this way.
Aug 28 2016
parent Seb <seb wilzba.ch> writes:
On Monday, 29 August 2016 at 01:09:47 UTC, Illuminati wrote:

 So, I'd rather hear something "Yes, great idea... we will work 
 on it when we get a chance" as it lets me know that the proper 
 attitudes are in effect that will help D go somewhere. If I 
 here "No, that's too hard... too much work. Not interested", 
 etc. It lets me know that the fight is an uphill battle and it 
 makes me not want to be part of that negative approach. Make 
 sense?


I think what Dicebot was saying is that according to his estimate 
the cost/benefit ratio for this idea is too low for him to 
volunteer for it.


 For example, I would be willing to contribute if I 
 thought/believed my contributions were going to be worthwhile. 
 I am not alone in this, everyone is this way.


No one ever said that contributions aren't welcome ;-)

I think your question was understood as "Hey guys, please do 
this!", not as "Hey I would like to have this, how can I help?"

As said before I think that the discussion on the pull request or 
the thread in the NG are quite okay for the moment (for 
comparison afaik: Rust uses explicitly the pull request to 
discuss their RFCs, whereas Python uses solely a mailing list).

My personal take on that: it's great if you have time to 
contribute, but there are a lot more important things to do & if 
you want to improve the DIP process, the best thing to do is to 
write a DIP yourself.
There are plenty of draft DIPs at [1] that just wait for someone 
like you to polish them and make a superb DIP submission out of 
them!

[1] https://wiki.dlang.org/DIPs
Aug 28 2016
prev sibling parent Seb <seb wilzba.ch> writes:
On Sunday, 28 August 2016 at 18:17:51 UTC, Illuminati wrote:

 Maybe for each Dip it would be nice to have a discussion or 
 comments section exposed in some way. A full fledged 
 subforum(per DIP) would be better so contrasting threads could 
 be followed easier.


How about using the pull request? You can even comment on a 
specific line ;-)
Aug 28 2016