www.digitalmars.com         C & C++   DMDScript  

digitalmars.D - safe/DIP1028 explained in meme form

reply Ethan <gooberman gmail.com> writes:
Distracted boyfriend format: https://imgflip.com/i/430bdh

Two buttons format: https://imgflip.com/i/430bi3

Drake format: https://imgflip.com/i/430bl4

Galaxy brain format: https://imgflip.com/i/430bx1

"Is this a" format: https://imgflip.com/i/430ct1

Boromir format: https://imgflip.com/i/430cyv

Change my mind format: https://imgflip.com/i/430d3w

Uno format: https://imgflip.com/i/430d9n

Exit ramp format: https://imgflip.com/i/430djd

Yelling at cat format: https://imgflip.com/i/430ees

Hard to swallow pill format: https://imgflip.com/i/430eoa

Scroll of truth format: https://imgflip.com/i/430evf

Buzz Lightyear format: https://imgflip.com/i/430f4n

Oprah format: https://imgflip.com/i/430f9k

And one last one: https://imgflip.com/i/430f08
May 27 2020
next sibling parent WebFreak001 <d.forum webfreak.org> writes:
On Wednesday, 27 May 2020 at 15:22:54 UTC, Ethan wrote:

 [...]


I love these thank you for making them xD

My favorites (in no particular order):

https://imgflip.com/i/430bx1
https://imgflip.com/i/430ct1
https://imgflip.com/i/430eoa
https://imgflip.com/i/430f4n

Is there any twitter bot which posts memes like these every 30 
minutes which we can just retweet all the time?
May 27 2020
prev sibling next sibling parent Johannes Loher <johannes.loher fg4f.de> writes:
Am 27.05.20 um 17:22 schrieb Ethan:

 [...]


I had to laugh so hard :D Thanks for lightening the mood in this
difficult situation :)
May 27 2020
prev sibling next sibling parent ag0aep6g <anonymous example.com> writes:
On 27.05.20 17:22, Ethan wrote:
[...]

I love it. Have a thumbs up. https://i.imgur.com/bDnPcxV.gif
May 27 2020
prev sibling next sibling parent Bruce Carneal <bcarneal gmail.com> writes:
On Wednesday, 27 May 2020 at 15:22:54 UTC, Ethan wrote:

 Distracted boyfriend format: https://imgflip.com/i/430bdh

 Two buttons format: https://imgflip.com/i/430bi3

 Drake format: https://imgflip.com/i/430bl4

 Galaxy brain format: https://imgflip.com/i/430bx1

 "Is this a" format: https://imgflip.com/i/430ct1

 Boromir format: https://imgflip.com/i/430cyv

 Change my mind format: https://imgflip.com/i/430d3w

 Uno format: https://imgflip.com/i/430d9n

 Exit ramp format: https://imgflip.com/i/430djd

 Yelling at cat format: https://imgflip.com/i/430ees

 Hard to swallow pill format: https://imgflip.com/i/430eoa


Very much appreciated.  A truth revealing comic is worth more 
than a thousand words and you've given us several.
May 27 2020
prev sibling next sibling parent Andrei Alexandrescu <SeeWebsiteForEmail erdani.com> writes:
On 5/27/20 11:22 AM, Ethan wrote:

 Distracted boyfriend format: https://imgflip.com/i/430bdh
 
 Two buttons format: https://imgflip.com/i/430bi3
 
 Drake format: https://imgflip.com/i/430bl4
 
 Galaxy brain format: https://imgflip.com/i/430bx1
 
 "Is this a" format: https://imgflip.com/i/430ct1
 
 Boromir format: https://imgflip.com/i/430cyv
 
 Change my mind format: https://imgflip.com/i/430d3w
 
 Uno format: https://imgflip.com/i/430d9n
 
 Exit ramp format: https://imgflip.com/i/430djd
 
 Yelling at cat format: https://imgflip.com/i/430ees
 
 Hard to swallow pill format: https://imgflip.com/i/430eoa
 
 Scroll of truth format: https://imgflip.com/i/430evf
 
 Buzz Lightyear format: https://imgflip.com/i/430f4n
 
 Oprah format: https://imgflip.com/i/430f9k
 
 And one last one: https://imgflip.com/i/430f08


I laughed so hard!!!
May 27 2020
prev sibling next sibling parent reply Ethan <gooberman gmail.com> writes:
On Wednesday, 27 May 2020 at 15:22:54 UTC, Ethan wrote:

 ...


Facebook form: https://imgflip.com/i/430nrt

Same picture form: https://imgflip.com/i/430o6e

This is fine form: https://imgflip.com/i/430ogf

All the things form: https://imgflip.com/i/430ola

Too high form: https://imgflip.com/i/430opt

Morpheus form: https://imgflip.com/i/430osn

Mufasa and Simba form: https://imgflip.com/i/430oxh


If I had the time and patience, I'd caption that classic scene 
from Marathon Man... https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mqrpPaNm8yw

But I'm done for now.
May 27 2020
next sibling parent reply Manu <turkeyman gmail.com> writes:
On Thu, May 28, 2020 at 2:30 AM Ethan via Digitalmars-d <
digitalmars-d puremagic.com> wrote:


 On Wednesday, 27 May 2020 at 15:22:54 UTC, Ethan wrote:

 ...


 Facebook form: https://imgflip.com/i/430nrt

 Same picture form: https://imgflip.com/i/430o6e

 This is fine form: https://imgflip.com/i/430ogf

 All the things form: https://imgflip.com/i/430ola

 Too high form: https://imgflip.com/i/430opt

 Morpheus form: https://imgflip.com/i/430osn

 Mufasa and Simba form: https://imgflip.com/i/430oxh


 If I had the time and patience, I'd caption that classic scene
 from Marathon Man... https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mqrpPaNm8yw

 But I'm done for now.


OMFG... Wow... what on earth happened here while I wasn't looking!
May 27 2020
next sibling parent Arine <arine1283798123 gmail.com> writes:
On Thursday, 28 May 2020 at 02:39:16 UTC, Manu wrote:

 On Thu, May 28, 2020 at 2:30 AM Ethan via Digitalmars-d < 
 digitalmars-d puremagic.com> wrote:


 On Wednesday, 27 May 2020 at 15:22:54 UTC, Ethan wrote:

 ...


 Facebook form: https://imgflip.com/i/430nrt

 Same picture form: https://imgflip.com/i/430o6e

 This is fine form: https://imgflip.com/i/430ogf

 All the things form: https://imgflip.com/i/430ola

 Too high form: https://imgflip.com/i/430opt

 Morpheus form: https://imgflip.com/i/430osn

 Mufasa and Simba form: https://imgflip.com/i/430oxh


 If I had the time and patience, I'd caption that classic scene 
 from Marathon Man... 
 https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mqrpPaNm8yw

 But I'm done for now.


 OMFG... Wow... what on earth happened here while I wasn't 
 looking!


A sense of professionalism.
May 27 2020
prev sibling parent reply Ethan <gooberman gmail.com> writes:
On Thursday, 28 May 2020 at 02:39:16 UTC, Manu wrote:

 OMFG... Wow... what on earth happened here while I wasn't 
 looking!


I wasn't looking either. I don't have a ton of time to devote to 
non-work activities at the moment.

I have to say though. I don't think I've ever seen the D 
community this unified.
May 28 2020
next sibling parent "H. S. Teoh" <hsteoh quickfur.ath.cx> writes:
 On Thursday, 28 May 2020 at 02:39:16 UTC, Manu wrote:

 OMFG... Wow... what on earth happened here while I wasn't looking!




You were experiencing the opposite of this:

	https://www.forbes.com/asap/2000/1127/093.html

When you're looking, nothing happens. But when you're not looking,
things boil. :-P


--T
May 28 2020
prev sibling parent Manu <turkeyman gmail.com> writes:
On Fri, May 29, 2020 at 3:10 AM Ethan via Digitalmars-d <
digitalmars-d puremagic.com> wrote:


 On Thursday, 28 May 2020 at 02:39:16 UTC, Manu wrote:

 OMFG... Wow... what on earth happened here while I wasn't
 looking!


 I wasn't looking either. I don't have a ton of time to devote to
 non-work activities at the moment.

 I have to say though. I don't think I've ever seen the D
 community this unified.


Yeah, I'm just desperately struggling to keep on top of my real work :/
This was a weird thing.
May 29 2020
prev sibling parent Jonathan M Davis <newsgroup.d jmdavisprog.com> writes:
On Wednesday, May 27, 2020 8:39:16 PM MDT Manu via Digitalmars-d wrote:

 On Thu, May 28, 2020 at 2:30 AM Ethan via Digitalmars-d <

 digitalmars-d puremagic.com> wrote:

 On Wednesday, 27 May 2020 at 15:22:54 UTC, Ethan wrote:

 ...


 Facebook form: https://imgflip.com/i/430nrt

 Same picture form: https://imgflip.com/i/430o6e

 This is fine form: https://imgflip.com/i/430ogf

 All the things form: https://imgflip.com/i/430ola

 Too high form: https://imgflip.com/i/430opt

 Morpheus form: https://imgflip.com/i/430osn

 Mufasa and Simba form: https://imgflip.com/i/430oxh


 If I had the time and patience, I'd caption that classic scene
 from Marathon Man... https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mqrpPaNm8yw

 But I'm done for now.


 OMFG... Wow... what on earth happened here while I wasn't looking!


DIP 1028 was accepted, and the response is almost entirely negative.
Apparently, Ethan decided to have fun with the whole thing. :)

https://forum.dlang.org/post/rwjxbgsauknjjrvousti forum.dlang.org
https://forum.dlang.org/post/ra79g0$2rsg$1 digitalmars.com

- Jonathan M Davis
May 27 2020
prev sibling next sibling parent reply IGotD- <nise nise.com> writes:
On Wednesday, 27 May 2020 at 15:22:54 UTC, Ethan wrote:

 Distracted boyfriend format: https://imgflip.com/i/430bdh


This one is quite telling what actually happened. The only thing 
that is missing is adding Walters face on that guy. I was sure 
that DIP 1028 would have to take another round because there were 
a few open issues with this DIP that many pointed out. Instead 
DIP 1028 was rushed and of course Walter really wants this DIP to 
go through as it is "the new hot chick in town", which he has 
said himself that safe by default is one of the highest 
priorities. So things were rushed ....
May 28 2020
next sibling parent reply Mike Parker <aldacron gmail.com> writes:
On Thursday, 28 May 2020 at 12:16:37 UTC, IGotD- wrote:

 On Wednesday, 27 May 2020 at 15:22:54 UTC, Ethan wrote:

 Distracted boyfriend format: https://imgflip.com/i/430bdh


 This one is quite telling what actually happened. The only 
 thing that is missing is adding Walters face on that guy. I was 
 sure that DIP 1028 would have to take another round because 
 there were a few open issues with this DIP that many pointed 
 out. Instead DIP 1028 was rushed and of course Walter really 
 wants this DIP to go through as it is "the new hot chick in 
 town", which he has said himself that safe by default is one of 
 the highest priorities. So things were rushed ....


The DIP was not rushed. It went through the same steps as every 
other DIP.

https://github.com/dlang/DIPs
May 28 2020
next sibling parent reply Gregory <g.thompson.1892 gmall.com> writes:
On Thursday, 28 May 2020 at 13:28:00 UTC, Mike Parker wrote:

 On Thursday, 28 May 2020 at 12:16:37 UTC, IGotD- wrote:

 On Wednesday, 27 May 2020 at 15:22:54 UTC, Ethan wrote:

 Distracted boyfriend format: https://imgflip.com/i/430bdh


 This one is quite telling what actually happened. The only 
 thing that is missing is adding Walters face on that guy. I 
 was sure that DIP 1028 would have to take another round 
 because there were a few open issues with this DIP that many 
 pointed out. Instead DIP 1028 was rushed and of course Walter 
 really wants this DIP to go through as it is "the new hot 
 chick in town", which he has said himself that safe by default 
 is one of the highest priorities. So things were rushed ....


 The DIP was not rushed. It went through the same steps as every 
 other DIP.

 https://github.com/dlang/DIPs


I think everyone can agree that there's a huge conflict of 
interest when the person creating the DIP is also the one that is 
suppose to be criticising it and determines whether it is 
accepted or not. There's a huge difference in the level of 
detail, care, and explanation between one of Walter's DIPs and 
the DIPs done by other individuals.

As is with the case with DIP1028, no where in the DIP is 
greenwashing mentioned. There's barely a section explaining the 
rationale as to why extern(C) should be  safe. Walter 
purposefully did not explain his rationale behind the motive to 
make that change. He only explained it after the DIP had already 
been accepted. So it was never something anyone could criticise 
in the entire process because his DIPs don't have to explain. It 
just has to state what it's doing and that's not what a DIP 
should be; it should explain why so it can be criticised properly.

There's a clear problem with the current DIP process. DIP1028 has 
made that clear.
May 28 2020
parent reply Mike Parker <aldacron gmail.com> writes:
On Thursday, 28 May 2020 at 14:56:14 UTC, Gregory wrote:

 There's a clear problem with the current DIP process. DIP1028 
 has made that clear.


I disagree. The process itself is working as intended.
May 28 2020
next sibling parent reply Adam D. Ruppe <destructionator gmail.com> writes:
On Thursday, 28 May 2020 at 16:27:56 UTC, Mike Parker wrote:

 On Thursday, 28 May 2020 at 14:56:14 UTC, Gregory wrote:

 There's a clear problem with the current DIP process. DIP1028 
 has made that clear.


 I disagree. The process itself is working as intended.


Which is why the process is problematic and needs to be changed.
May 28 2020
next sibling parent reply Mike Parker <aldacron gmail.com> writes:
On Thursday, 28 May 2020 at 16:35:09 UTC, Adam D. Ruppe wrote:


 Which is why the process is problematic and needs to be changed.


Again, I disagree. The *process* is not problematic. The issue 
people are having right now is with the assessment of DIPs 
written by the language maintainers. That's separate from the 
review process itself.
May 28 2020
next sibling parent Johannes Loher <johannes.loher fg4f.de> writes:
On Thursday, 28 May 2020 at 16:48:41 UTC, Mike Parker wrote:

 On Thursday, 28 May 2020 at 16:35:09 UTC, Adam D. Ruppe wrote:


 Which is why the process is problematic and needs to be 
 changed.


 Again, I disagree. The *process* is not problematic. The issue 
 people are having right now is with the assessment of DIPs 
 written by the language maintainers. That's separate from the 
 review process itself.


That's part of it. But at least some people also also would like 
to change the fact that in the end, the decision is made only by 
2 people, especially if the proposal is made by one of these 2 
people. The reason is that it just is very difficult to make an 
objective decision about your own proposal and only having to 
convince one person is a lot easier than having to convince 2. 
People feel that DIP1028 would probably not have been accepted if 
we had a stricter process in that regard.
May 28 2020
prev sibling parent Max Samukha <maxsamukha gmail.com> writes:
On Thursday, 28 May 2020 at 16:48:41 UTC, Mike Parker wrote:

 On Thursday, 28 May 2020 at 16:35:09 UTC, Adam D. Ruppe wrote:


 Which is why the process is problematic and needs to be 
 changed.


 Again, I disagree. The *process* is not problematic. The issue 
 people are having right now is with the assessment of DIPs 
 written by the language maintainers. That's separate from the 
 review process itself.


This is demagoguery. Gregory and Adam did not refer specifically 
to the review part of the process. And the process overall 
includes assessment.
May 28 2020
prev sibling parent reply Bruce Carneal <bcarneal gmail.com> writes:
On Thursday, 28 May 2020 at 16:35:09 UTC, Adam D. Ruppe wrote:

 On Thursday, 28 May 2020 at 16:27:56 UTC, Mike Parker wrote:

 On Thursday, 28 May 2020 at 14:56:14 UTC, Gregory wrote:

 There's a clear problem with the current DIP process. DIP1028 
 has made that clear.


 I disagree. The process itself is working as intended.


 Which is why the process is problematic and needs to be changed.


For most DIPs we have two nominally impartial experts looking out 
for the interests of the community.  In the case of 1028 we only 
had 1, Atila.

This is a problem with the process that can and should be fixed.
May 28 2020
parent reply Ethan <gooberman gmail.com> writes:
On Thursday, 28 May 2020 at 16:50:52 UTC, Bruce Carneal wrote:

 For most DIPs we have two nominally impartial experts looking 
 out for the interests of the community.  In the case of 1028 we 
 only had 1, Atila.

 This is a problem with the process that can and should be fixed.


No, this is where y'all are getting wrong. The process led to a 
review board of two. Or, essentially one in this case since the 
author was on the board and thus unable to be impartial.

The board is the area that needs expansion. The process that gets 
a DIP in front of and away from the board will not change if the 
number of board members increases/members recuse themselves for 
impartiality reasons/etc.
May 28 2020
next sibling parent reply Meta <jared771 gmail.com> writes:
On Thursday, 28 May 2020 at 16:54:43 UTC, Ethan wrote:

 On Thursday, 28 May 2020 at 16:50:52 UTC, Bruce Carneal wrote:

 For most DIPs we have two nominally impartial experts looking 
 out for the interests of the community.  In the case of 1028 
 we only had 1, Atila.

 This is a problem with the process that can and should be 
 fixed.


 No, this is where y'all are getting wrong. The process led to a 
 review board of two. Or, essentially one in this case since the 
 author was on the board and thus unable to be impartial.

 The board is the area that needs expansion. The process that 
 gets a DIP in front of and away from the board will not change 
 if the number of board members increases/members recuse 
 themselves for impartiality reasons/etc.


We should exercise *extreme* caution when considering any steps 
that might expand the current bureaucracy. The thing about 
bureaucracy is that it tends to expand, and once it does, it 
never, ever contracts. You can't put the genie back in the 
bottle, and we shouldn't do anything rash over a single incident 
(you may argue that there has been more than 1 incident, but I 
don't think any backlash over a DIP since the new process began 
has been this severe).
May 28 2020
parent reply Ethan <gooberman gmail.com> writes:
On Thursday, 28 May 2020 at 17:00:00 UTC, Meta wrote:

 We should exercise *extreme* caution when considering any steps 
 that might expand the current bureaucracy.


I agree in principle with this. Just look at the C++ board.

But it's clear that an effective review board of 1 in this 
situation is not enough.
May 28 2020
next sibling parent Bruce Carneal <bcarneal gmail.com> writes:
On Thursday, 28 May 2020 at 17:04:20 UTC, Ethan wrote:

 On Thursday, 28 May 2020 at 17:00:00 UTC, Meta wrote:

 We should exercise *extreme* caution when considering any 
 steps that might expand the current bureaucracy.


 I agree in principle with this. Just look at the C++ board.

 But it's clear that an effective review board of 1 in this 
 situation is not enough.


Yes.  To follow the spirit of the DIP process, if not the letter, 
every DIP should have a review board of 2 nominally impartial 
experts representing the dlang community.

To be clear, a DIP author is not impartial.  We'd need another LM 
(language maintainer) to step in when either of the sitting LMs 
authors a dip.
May 28 2020
prev sibling parent Ethan <gooberman gmail.com> writes:
On Thursday, 28 May 2020 at 17:04:20 UTC, Ethan wrote:

 But it's clear that an effective review board of 1 in this 
 situation is not enough.


American Chopper form: https://imgflip.com/i/435qvq
May 28 2020
prev sibling parent reply Andrei Alexandrescu <SeeWebsiteForEmail erdani.org> writes:
On 5/28/20 12:54 PM, Ethan wrote:

 On Thursday, 28 May 2020 at 16:50:52 UTC, Bruce Carneal wrote:

 For most DIPs we have two nominally impartial experts looking out for 
 the interests of the community.  In the case of 1028 we only had 1, 
 Atila.

 This is a problem with the process that can and should be fixed.


 
 No, this is where y'all are getting wrong. The process led to a review 
 board of two. Or, essentially one in this case since the author was on 
 the board and thus unable to be impartial.
 
 The board is the area that needs expansion. The process that gets a DIP 
 in front of and away from the board will not change if the number of 
 board members increases/members recuse themselves for impartiality 
 reasons/etc.


Quite quickly it goes to the same fixed point I mentioned a few days 
ago: We need a few more folks of Walter's caliber. Whom we don't have. 
(They're in awfully short supply is part of the problem.) Define roles 
all we want, shuffle human resources (real or imaginary) all we want, 
strategize all we want, we can't get around this obvious obstacle. Much 
of the current kerfuffle is the panic resulting from the fact that he is 
just like anyone liable to make mistakes.
May 28 2020
next sibling parent Seb <seb wilzba.ch> writes:
On Thursday, 28 May 2020 at 22:54:07 UTC, Andrei Alexandrescu 
wrote:

 On 5/28/20 12:54 PM, Ethan wrote:

 On Thursday, 28 May 2020 at 16:50:52 UTC, Bruce Carneal wrote:

 For most DIPs we have two nominally impartial experts looking 
 out for the interests of the community.  In the case of 1028 
 we only had 1, Atila.

 This is a problem with the process that can and should be 
 fixed.


 
 No, this is where y'all are getting wrong. The process led to 
 a review board of two. Or, essentially one in this case since 
 the author was on the board and thus unable to be impartial.
 
 The board is the area that needs expansion. The process that 
 gets a DIP in front of and away from the board will not change 
 if the number of board members increases/members recuse 
 themselves for impartiality reasons/etc.


 Quite quickly it goes to the same fixed point I mentioned a few 
 days ago: We need a few more folks of Walter's caliber. Whom we 
 don't have. (They're in awfully short supply is part of the 
 problem.) Define roles all we want, shuffle human resources 
 (real or imaginary) all we want, strategize all we want, we 
 can't get around this obvious obstacle.


I don't think that's necessarily true.
We already have a few amazing people like Ian (GDC), kinke (LDC) 
or Timon whose opinion I/we value greatly.

Especially considering that LDC and GDC also have quite some 
stake in development: why can't we give the current lead of both 
these projects at least voting rights for DIPs?

Note that voting right doesn't mean that they have to vote on 
every DIP, but surely this DIP is one of the sadly many recent 
examples where the current one-man decision-making has very 
obvious flaws.


  Much of the current kerfuffle is the panic resulting from the 
 fact that he is just like anyone liable to make mistakes.


Yes, but isn't this exactly why he shouldn't be in charge of 
reviewing his own proposals?
May 28 2020
prev sibling next sibling parent Adam D. Ruppe <destructionator gmail.com> writes:
On Thursday, 28 May 2020 at 22:54:07 UTC, Andrei Alexandrescu 
wrote:

 We need a few more folks of Walter's caliber. Whom we don't 
 have.


Let's, for sake of argument, assume this is true.


 he is just like anyone liable to make mistakes.


Indeed.

'nuff said, argument destroyed.


But let me expand anyway: Walter likes to talk about aviation 
safety. A big part of that is remembering that all parts fail and 
you need to make sure that a failed part isn't a disaster that 
brings the airplane down. Right now we are very reliant on 
perfect parts. A cheap way to improve this is redundancy - 
engineering a 99.9% safe part is an enormous challenge, but 
having two separate parts each 90% safe with a system that can 
survive any one of them failing gives you that same 99.9% 
reliability.

One of the important aspects of designing this system is ensuring 
the backup system isn't linked to the primary system. Walter has 
described how Boeing had two independent teams with a third team 
just making sure the other two hadn't coincidentally came up with 
the same conclusion or otherwise shared a failure mode.

We might not be able to achieve excellence in individual parts. 
But we ought to be able to design a system that's greater than 
the whole of its parts. A big part of that is redundancy, yes, 
but it is also important to have variety, so the backup part 
doesn't have the same failure characteristics as the primary.

We shouldn't be looking for two Walters. (well ok, having two 
Walters would be pretty cool. but not for this purpose). We need 
diversity here. It is OK to make mistakes, but if the SAME 
mistake is made at the same time, we haven't gained anything.
May 28 2020
prev sibling parent IGotD- <nise nise.com> writes:
On Thursday, 28 May 2020 at 22:54:07 UTC, Andrei Alexandrescu 
wrote:

 Quite quickly it goes to the same fixed point I mentioned a few 
 days ago: We need a few more folks of Walter's caliber. Whom we 
 don't have. (They're in awfully short supply is part of the 
 problem.) Define roles all we want, shuffle human resources 
 (real or imaginary) all we want, strategize all we want, we 
 can't get around this obvious obstacle. Much of the current 
 kerfuffle is the panic resulting from the fact that he is just 
 like anyone liable to make mistakes.


I think that the obvious problem of this drama and also the D 
project as a whole, is that the project doesn't scale beyond a 
startup like project run by to close buddies. The company that 
succeeds hire a professional manager (typically a CEO) and the 
ones that don't just keep on going. There will be occasions where 
the founders will not agree but the third party ensures the 
interest of the company. I've seen this dozens of times right now 
and it is often when the technical staff tries to go on project 
management without any experience. Either the company sends some 
of the programmers to some kind of leadership course or similar 
or hire a professional, then things usually improve, a little bit 
at least. The company that doesn't act and believe programmers 
have some hereditary project management abilities, always fails 
with the targets and the project as a whole.

What this project needs is more people on board and that's not 
necessarily need to be a technical expert but someone whose 
responsibility to ensure that the D language becomes successful. 
This is the difference between Rust and D. Rust has professional 
managers and can afford it, D has not the resources for this.

The D project has two directions now, either let this where the 
community decide the direction of D or D should be run by some 
kind board. I'm not so sure about if the community should have 
too much to say because that might hinder the progress of D. 
People will always disagree so it is much more difficult. You 
Andrei is always welcome back. Would you reconsider even if it 
would less time as the board would increase?

Also the panic around DIP 1028 also shows the difference in 
expectations of the community input.
May 29 2020
prev sibling parent reply Gregory <g.thompson.1892 gmall.com> writes:
On Thursday, 28 May 2020 at 16:27:56 UTC, Mike Parker wrote:

 On Thursday, 28 May 2020 at 14:56:14 UTC, Gregory wrote:

 There's a clear problem with the current DIP process. DIP1028 
 has made that clear.


 I disagree. The process itself is working as intended.


Responses like this are part of the problem (similar to Walter's 
responses).

If you want to explain how the above 2 paragraphs you cropped out 
aren't problematic, then I might be willing to reconsider my 
viewpoint. But as you've demonstrated, the problem extends fast 
past Walter.
May 28 2020
next sibling parent Bruce Carneal <bcarneal gmail.com> writes:
On Thursday, 28 May 2020 at 17:21:05 UTC, Gregory wrote:

 On Thursday, 28 May 2020 at 16:27:56 UTC, Mike Parker wrote:

 On Thursday, 28 May 2020 at 14:56:14 UTC, Gregory wrote:

 There's a clear problem with the current DIP process. DIP1028 
 has made that clear.


 I disagree. The process itself is working as intended.


 Responses like this are part of the problem (similar to 
 Walter's responses).

 If you want to explain how the above 2 paragraphs you cropped 
 out aren't problematic, then I might be willing to reconsider 
 my viewpoint. But as you've demonstrated, the problem extends 
 fast past Walter.


Mike has, in my experience, been both efficient at administering 
the DIP process and open to change.  There's a difference between 
faithfully administering current policy and believing that that 
policy is optimal.
May 28 2020
prev sibling parent reply Mike Parker <aldacron gmail.com> writes:
On Thursday, 28 May 2020 at 17:21:05 UTC, Gregory wrote:

 On Thursday, 28 May 2020 at 16:27:56 UTC, Mike Parker wrote:

 On Thursday, 28 May 2020 at 14:56:14 UTC, Gregory wrote:

 There's a clear problem with the current DIP process. DIP1028 
 has made that clear.


 I disagree. The process itself is working as intended.


 Responses like this are part of the problem (similar to 
 Walter's responses).

 If you want to explain how the above 2 paragraphs you cropped 
 out aren't problematic, then I might be willing to reconsider 
 my viewpoint. But as you've demonstrated, the problem extends 
 fast past Walter.


I repeat: the process is working as intended. That no one 
succeeded in convincing the DIP author to revise the DIP is not a 
failure of the process. That the decision to approve is unpopular 
is not a failure of the process.

Whether or not the language maintainers should be evaluating 
their own proposals is an issue with the decision making, not 
with the entire process.
May 28 2020
next sibling parent reply Johannes Loher <johannes.loher fg4f.de> writes:
On Thursday, 28 May 2020 at 17:38:15 UTC, Mike Parker wrote:

 On Thursday, 28 May 2020 at 17:21:05 UTC, Gregory wrote:

 On Thursday, 28 May 2020 at 16:27:56 UTC, Mike Parker wrote:

 On Thursday, 28 May 2020 at 14:56:14 UTC, Gregory wrote:

 There's a clear problem with the current DIP process. 
 DIP1028 has made that clear.


 I disagree. The process itself is working as intended.


 Responses like this are part of the problem (similar to 
 Walter's responses).

 If you want to explain how the above 2 paragraphs you cropped 
 out aren't problematic, then I might be willing to reconsider 
 my viewpoint. But as you've demonstrated, the problem extends 
 fast past Walter.


 I repeat: the process is working as intended. That no one 
 succeeded in convincing the DIP author to revise the DIP is not 
 a failure of the process. That the decision to approve is 
 unpopular is not a failure of the process.

 Whether or not the language maintainers should be evaluating 
 their own proposals is an issue with the decision making, not 
 with the entire process.


So the fact that the decision is made by Walter and Atila only is 
not part of the process? If that’s the point of view, ok, the 
process does not need any change. But at least parts of the 
community request a change regarding this fact (I am not saying 
that this request is right or wrong, I am just stating that it 
exists).
May 28 2020
parent reply Mike Parker <aldacron gmail.com> writes:
On Thursday, 28 May 2020 at 17:46:13 UTC, Johannes Loher wrote:


 So the fact that the decision is made by Walter and Atila only 
 is not part of the process? If that’s the point of view, ok, 
 the process does not need any change. But at least parts of the 
 community request a change regarding this fact (I am not saying 
 that this request is right or wrong, I am just stating that it 
 exists).


 From the README in the DIP repository:
https://github.com/dlang/DIPs

"Each DIP is steered through a process of public review by the 
DIP manager. Each stage of the process is intended to prepare the 
DIP for its ultimate evaluation by the language maintainers 
(Walter Bright and Átila Neves)."

This is how I've always defined the "process". Once it's in the 
maintainers' hands, the "process" is finished and the decision 
making gets underway. So yes, I want to make clear when people 
claim "the DIP process is broken" that no, it is not as far as I 
can see.
May 28 2020
next sibling parent Bruce Carneal <bcarneal gmail.com> writes:
On Thursday, 28 May 2020 at 17:52:41 UTC, Mike Parker wrote:

 On Thursday, 28 May 2020 at 17:46:13 UTC, Johannes Loher wrote:


 So the fact that the decision is made by Walter and Atila only 
 is not part of the process? If that’s the point of view, ok, 
 the process does not need any change. But at least parts of 
 the community request a change regarding this fact (I am not 
 saying that this request is right or wrong, I am just stating 
 that it exists).


 From the README in the DIP repository:
 https://github.com/dlang/DIPs

 "Each DIP is steered through a process of public review by the 
 DIP manager. Each stage of the process is intended to prepare 
 the DIP for its ultimate evaluation by the language maintainers 
 (Walter Bright and Átila Neves)."

 This is how I've always defined the "process". Once it's in the 
 maintainers' hands, the "process" is finished and the decision 
 making gets underway. So yes, I want to make clear when people 
 claim "the DIP process is broken" that no, it is not as far as 
 I can see.


Well, the DIP is not finally resolved until the decision is made 
so it's reasonable to assume that most would believe that the 
"DIP process" includes the decision making.

Whatever label we put on it, the community is ill served when the 
number of nominally impartial reviewers goes from two to one.
May 28 2020
prev sibling parent Johannes Loher <johannes.loher fg4f.de> writes:
Am 28.05.20 um 19:52 schrieb Mike Parker:

 On Thursday, 28 May 2020 at 17:46:13 UTC, Johannes Loher wrote:
 

 So the fact that the decision is made by Walter and Atila only is not
 part of the process? If that’s the point of view, ok, the process does
 not need any change. But at least parts of the community request a
 change regarding this fact (I am not saying that this request is right
 or wrong, I am just stating that it exists).


 
 From the README in the DIP repository:
 https://github.com/dlang/DIPs
 
 "Each DIP is steered through a process of public review by the DIP
 manager. Each stage of the process is intended to prepare the DIP for
 its ultimate evaluation by the language maintainers (Walter Bright and
 Átila Neves)."
 
 This is how I've always defined the "process". Once it's in the
 maintainers' hands, the "process" is finished and the decision making
 gets underway. So yes, I want to make clear when people claim "the DIP
 process is broken" that no, it is not as far as I can see.
 
 
 
 


From the document
https://github.com/dlang/DIPs/blob/master/docs/process-reviews.md (which
the README.md links to as "The DIP Review Process"):

"There are four review stages, three of which are public and open to all
participants."

Then it lists:
- "Draft Review"
- "Community Review"
- "Final Review"
- "Formal Assessment"

To me this looks like "Formal Assessment" is part of the process.

All of this doesn't really matter though. It's just words / names. What
(some) people want is to change how / by whom the decision is made when
the DIP author is one of the 2 language maintainers. If that is not
formally part of the DIP process, fine, just change whatever process it
is part of (if we actually come to the conclusion that that's the right
thing to do).
May 28 2020
prev sibling next sibling parent reply Adam D. Ruppe <destructionator gmail.com> writes:
On Thursday, 28 May 2020 at 17:38:15 UTC, Mike Parker wrote:

 I repeat


At some point you should realize that something is going wrong if 
you keep repeating the same thing over and over.
May 28 2020
parent reply Mike Parker <aldacron gmail.com> writes:
On Thursday, 28 May 2020 at 17:57:16 UTC, Adam D. Ruppe wrote:

 On Thursday, 28 May 2020 at 17:38:15 UTC, Mike Parker wrote:

 I repeat


 At some point you should realize that something is going wrong 
 if you keep repeating the same thing over and over.


Yeah. That people are missing my point completely.
May 28 2020
parent reply Bastiaan Veelo <Bastiaan Veelo.net> writes:
On Thursday, 28 May 2020 at 17:58:12 UTC, Mike Parker wrote:

 On Thursday, 28 May 2020 at 17:57:16 UTC, Adam D. Ruppe wrote:

 On Thursday, 28 May 2020 at 17:38:15 UTC, Mike Parker wrote:

 I repeat


 At some point you should realize that something is going wrong 
 if you keep repeating the same thing over and over.


 Yeah. That people are missing my point completely.


Your point is that the rules were followed as intended, right? 
Their point is that the rules should be changed to remove bias.

— Bastiaan.
May 28 2020
parent reply Mike Parker <aldacron gmail.com> writes:
On Thursday, 28 May 2020 at 21:16:31 UTC, Bastiaan Veelo wrote:


 Your point is that the rules were followed as intended, right? 
 Their point is that the rules should be changed to remove bias.


Let me put it another way. The DIP process is something that, as 
DIP manager, it's in my power to change by revising the 
documentation. But it's not up to me to decide who or how many 
people make decisions about language features. That step is 
*outside* of the DIP process. If they wanted to, they could very 
well decide to implement new features without ever submitting a 
DIP.

The reason I'm arguing semantics is that on more than one 
occasion I have seen people who misunderstand what the DIP 
process is intended to achieve (e.g., people who assume it's a 
community vote). When people complain that "the DIP process is 
broken", then somewhere down the line on reddit or discord or 
somewhere else I'll inevitably run into someone who considers it 
broken from beginning to end because they saw in the forums that 
"the DIP process is broken". When enough people say it, that kind 
of thing can spread.

I'm happy to discuss changes to the DIP process and I'm willing 
to make them if I can be convinced they're needed. I've done it 
before. We all want the best process we can have. But changing 
how DIPs are approved is out of bounds for me and therefore not 
part of the DIP process.

Anyone who would like to see changes to the decision-making 
process is welcome to send suggestions or proposals to me, 
however, as Bruce has done. Then I can put that on the agenda of 
the next foundation meeting.
May 28 2020
parent reply Johannes Loher <johannes.loher fg4f.de> writes:
Am 29.05.20 um 05:18 schrieb Mike Parker:

 On Thursday, 28 May 2020 at 21:16:31 UTC, Bastiaan Veelo wrote:
 

 Your point is that the rules were followed as intended, right? Their
 point is that the rules should be changed to remove bias.


 
 Let me put it another way. The DIP process is something that, as DIP
 manager, it's in my power to change by revising the documentation. But
 it's not up to me to decide who or how many people make decisions about
 language features. That step is *outside* of the DIP process. If they
 wanted to, they could very well decide to implement new features without
 ever submitting a DIP.
 
 The reason I'm arguing semantics is that on more than one occasion I
 have seen people who misunderstand what the DIP process is intended to
 achieve (e.g., people who assume it's a community vote). When people
 complain that "the DIP process is broken", then somewhere down the line
 on reddit or discord or somewhere else I'll inevitably run into someone
 who considers it broken from beginning to end because they saw in the
 forums that "the DIP process is broken". When enough people say it, that
 kind of thing can spread.
 
 I'm happy to discuss changes to the DIP process and I'm willing to make
 them if I can be convinced they're needed. I've done it before. We all
 want the best process we can have. But changing how DIPs are approved is
 out of bounds for me and therefore not part of the DIP process.
 
 Anyone who would like to see changes to the decision-making process is
 welcome to send suggestions or proposals to me, however, as Bruce has
 done. Then I can put that on the agenda of the next foundation meeting.
 
 


OK, now I understand why you view it that way and it makes sense. Thanks
for clarifying that. Personally, I did not view it that way until now
(and I believe many others also did not). For me the DIP process was the
complete process you need to go through in order to get a change to the
language accepted or rejected, including formal assessment.

And from the documentation of the DIP process, it certainly reads that
way as I have laid out in an earlier post. If formal assessment really
is not part of what we call the "DIP process", the documentation needs
to be adjusted to make that clear.

However, from the perspective of anybody else than you, it doesn't
really make a lot of sense. Why would you ever consider the process
without the actual decision making in the end? For the community, it
doesn't really matter that you personally don't have any power regarding
the decision-making process. We want to talk about the whole process of
getting a change into the language and it's just cumbersome to always
say "the DIP process and the decision making process"...
May 28 2020
parent reply Mike Parker <aldacron gmail.com> writes:
On Friday, 29 May 2020 at 04:27:18 UTC, Johannes Loher wrote:


 However, from the perspective of anybody else than you, it 
 doesn't really make a lot of sense. Why would you ever consider 
 the process without the actual decision making in the end? For 
 the community, it doesn't really matter that you personally 
 don't have any power regarding the decision-making process. We 
 want to talk about the whole process of getting a change into 
 the language and it's just cumbersome to always say "the DIP 
 process and the decision making process"...


Yes, I understand. What it really comes down to is that I'm just 
asking people to be more careful with their language. These 
forums do not exist in a sealed vacuum, and what we say here can 
easily be misinterpreted elsewhere or by someone with an interest 
in D who's looking over the forums. "It's messed up that a DIP 
author can decide on his own proposal" is very different from a 
broad claim like "the DIP process is broken".
May 28 2020
parent reply Gregory <g.thompson.1892 gmall.com> writes:
On Friday, 29 May 2020 at 05:03:25 UTC, Mike Parker wrote:

 On Friday, 29 May 2020 at 04:27:18 UTC, Johannes Loher wrote:
  "It's messed up that a DIP author can decide on his own 
 proposal" is very different from a broad claim like "the DIP 
 process is broken".


Not that different. All the more reason for the DIP process to be 
fixed than leave it the way it is. You are just arguing semantics 
at this point to try and avoid bad PR. You care more about public 
imagine than due process. That's backwards.
May 29 2020
parent reply Mike Parker <aldacron gmail.com> writes:
On Friday, 29 May 2020 at 11:14:31 UTC, Gregory wrote:


 Not that different. All the more reason for the DIP process to 
 be fixed than leave it the way it is. You are just arguing 
 semantics at this point to try and avoid bad PR. You care more 
 about public imagine than due process. That's backwards.


Well, for one, caring about D's image is part of what I do. For 
another, I'm not arguing against changes to the decision-making 
process (or changes to any part of the DIP process), so I really 
don't know what you're on about.
May 29 2020
parent reply Gregory <g.thompson.1892 gmall.com> writes:
On Friday, 29 May 2020 at 11:23:22 UTC, Mike Parker wrote:

 On Friday, 29 May 2020 at 11:14:31 UTC, Gregory wrote:


 Not that different. All the more reason for the DIP process to 
 be fixed than leave it the way it is. You are just arguing 
 semantics at this point to try and avoid bad PR. You care more 
 about public imagine than due process. That's backwards.


 Well, for one, caring about D's image is part of what I do. For 
 another, I'm not arguing against changes to the decision-making 
 process (or changes to any part of the DIP process), so I 
 really don't know what you're on about.


So there's no problem with the process, but you aren't against 
fixing the process? Which is it?
May 29 2020
next sibling parent reply Mike Parker <aldacron gmail.com> writes:
On Friday, 29 May 2020 at 13:12:22 UTC, Gregory wrote:


 So there's no problem with the process, but you aren't against 
 fixing the process? Which is it?


If you read my previous posts in this thread, I have said I don't 
believe the process is currently broken. But I also said this:

"I'm happy to discuss changes to the DIP process and I'm willing 
to make them if I can be convinced they're needed. I've done it 
before. We all want the best process we can have."

https://forum.dlang.org/post/eeiijnpjevxwlfesccnb forum.dlang.org

So, yes, it really is both. I don't see a problem in the process 
now, but I'm open to making changes that are in my purview if 
someone convinces me there *is* a problem or has ideas on how to 
improve it.
May 29 2020
parent reply Gregory <g.thompson.1892 gmall.com> writes:
On Friday, 29 May 2020 at 13:44:06 UTC, Mike Parker wrote:

 So, yes, it really is both. I don't see a problem in the 
 process now, but I'm open to making changes that are in my 
 purview if someone convinces me there *is* a problem or has 
 ideas on how to improve it.


There it is. So it's not both. If someone has to convince you 
there's a problem then you are against a fixing it.

Please just stop. PR babble isn't going to smooth over this issue 
unless you are willing to address it.
May 29 2020
next sibling parent Bruce Carneal <bcarneal gmail.com> writes:
On Friday, 29 May 2020 at 14:31:48 UTC, Gregory wrote:

 On Friday, 29 May 2020 at 13:44:06 UTC, Mike Parker wrote:

 So, yes, it really is both. I don't see a problem in the 
 process now, but I'm open to making changes that are in my 
 purview if someone convinces me there *is* a problem or has 
 ideas on how to improve it.


 There it is. So it's not both. If someone has to convince you 
 there's a problem then you are against a fixing it.

 Please just stop. PR babble isn't going to smooth over this 
 issue unless you are willing to address it.


Given his definition of the "DIP process" I believe Mike has 
addressed it.

I would like to hear what you think is wrong with the DIP process 
as he defines it.  IOW what is wrong with the overall process up 
to but not including the decision making?

I completely agree that the decision making framework is 
sub-optimal, and that this definition of the "DIP process" is 
counter intuitive.  If you're talking about either of those, 
please clarify.
May 29 2020
prev sibling parent reply Mike Parker <aldacron gmail.com> writes:
On Friday, 29 May 2020 at 14:31:48 UTC, Gregory wrote:


 There it is. So it's not both. If someone has to convince you 
 there's a problem then you are against a fixing it.

 Please just stop. PR babble isn't going to smooth over this 
 issue unless you are willing to address it.


I really don't understand your hostility. Nor do I understand 
what your issue is at this point. At any rate, this is going 
nowhere so I'm done with this conversation. Happy to discuss the 
DIP process with you at a later date if you can do so like a 
rational adult.
May 29 2020
parent Gregory <g.thompson.1892 gmall.com> writes:
On Friday, 29 May 2020 at 15:26:03 UTC, Mike Parker wrote:

 On Friday, 29 May 2020 at 14:31:48 UTC, Gregory wrote:


 There it is. So it's not both. If someone has to convince you 
 there's a problem then you are against a fixing it.

 Please just stop. PR babble isn't going to smooth over this 
 issue unless you are willing to address it.


 I really don't understand your hostility. Nor do I understand 
 what your issue is at this point. At any rate, this is going 
 nowhere so I'm done with this conversation. Happy to discuss 
 the DIP process with you at a later date if you can do so like 
 a rational adult.


I tell my daughter I'm not against her riding my motorbike, she 
just can't have the keys, touch the clutch, gear shifter, 
throttle, or handlebars.

The logic you are trying to use isn't rationale. You are trying 
to deflect the issue to something else.
May 29 2020
prev sibling parent reply Ethan <gooberman gmail.com> writes:
On Friday, 29 May 2020 at 13:12:22 UTC, Gregory wrote:

 So there's no problem with the process, but you aren't against 
 fixing the process? Which is it?


So it's not enough that you get called out on getting your facts 
wrong. But now you're mixing up "changing a process" with "fixing 
a process"?

Okay then.

https://imgflip.com/i/439rjd

https://imgflip.com/i/439rno

https://imgflip.com/i/439rvw

https://imgflip.com/i/439rxp

https://imgflip.com/i/439so0
May 29 2020
parent reply Gregory <g.thompson.1892 gmall.com> writes:
On Friday, 29 May 2020 at 14:50:01 UTC, Ethan wrote:

 On Friday, 29 May 2020 at 13:12:22 UTC, Gregory wrote:

 So there's no problem with the process, but you aren't against 
 fixing the process? Which is it?


 So it's not enough that you get called out on getting your 
 facts wrong. But now you're mixing up "changing a process" with 
 "fixing a process"?

 Okay then.

 https://imgflip.com/i/439rjd

 https://imgflip.com/i/439rno

 https://imgflip.com/i/439rvw

 https://imgflip.com/i/439rxp

 https://imgflip.com/i/439so0


TIL changing a gear in a transmission isn't fixing it. Thanks.
May 29 2020
parent reply Ethan <gooberman gmail.com> writes:
On Friday, 29 May 2020 at 15:29:46 UTC, Gregory wrote:


 TIL changing a gear in a transmission isn't fixing it. Thanks.


https://imgflip.com/i/439zew
May 29 2020
parent reply Gregory <g.thompson.1892 gmall.com> writes:
On Friday, 29 May 2020 at 15:34:25 UTC, Ethan wrote:

 On Friday, 29 May 2020 at 15:29:46 UTC, Gregory wrote:


 TIL changing a gear in a transmission isn't fixing it. Thanks.


 https://imgflip.com/i/439zew


Never have to stop making memes if you didn't understand the 
meaning in the first place.
May 29 2020
parent reply Ethan <gooberman gmail.com> writes:
On Friday, 29 May 2020 at 15:36:41 UTC, Gregory wrote:

 On Friday, 29 May 2020 at 15:34:25 UTC, Ethan wrote:

 On Friday, 29 May 2020 at 15:29:46 UTC, Gregory wrote:


 TIL changing a gear in a transmission isn't fixing it. Thanks.


 https://imgflip.com/i/439zew


 Never have to stop making memes if you didn't understand the 
 meaning in the first place.


https://imgflip.com/i/43a0eg

Go troll some other corner of the internet. They have plenty 
supplies of the following items elsewhere:

https://i.imgur.com/T1hWvoE.jpg

https://i.imgur.com/NA4zQUs.jpg
May 29 2020
parent reply Gregory <g.thompson.1892 gmall.com> writes:
On Friday, 29 May 2020 at 15:43:27 UTC, Ethan wrote:

 On Friday, 29 May 2020 at 15:36:41 UTC, Gregory wrote:

 On Friday, 29 May 2020 at 15:34:25 UTC, Ethan wrote:

 On Friday, 29 May 2020 at 15:29:46 UTC, Gregory wrote:


 TIL changing a gear in a transmission isn't fixing it. 
 Thanks.


 https://imgflip.com/i/439zew


 Never have to stop making memes if you didn't understand the 
 meaning in the first place.


 https://imgflip.com/i/43a0eg

 Go troll some other corner of the internet. They have plenty 
 supplies of the following items elsewhere:

 https://i.imgur.com/T1hWvoE.jpg

 https://i.imgur.com/NA4zQUs.jpg


Not going to bother clicking meme links, how old are you?

So when he said making changes to the DIP process, you took that 
as he was willing to rip out, replace, and reconstruct the chasis 
for something that it wasn't designed for? Such as replacing an 
automatic gear transmission with an automatic CVT? That's what 
you got from that? And that's somehow my fault you misunderstood 
that?
May 29 2020
parent Ethan <gooberman gmail.com> writes:
On Friday, 29 May 2020 at 16:36:58 UTC, Gregory wrote:

 Not going to bother clicking meme links, how old are you?


So hold on. You've come in to a thread *defined* by memes, refuse 
to engage on anything but your own poor understanding of things, 
and *then* start calling people childish?

Go elsewhere, troll. You are not welcome here.
May 29 2020
prev sibling next sibling parent reply Gregory <g.thompson.1892 gmall.com> writes:
On Thursday, 28 May 2020 at 17:38:15 UTC, Mike Parker wrote:

 On Thursday, 28 May 2020 at 17:21:05 UTC, Gregory wrote:

 On Thursday, 28 May 2020 at 16:27:56 UTC, Mike Parker wrote:

 On Thursday, 28 May 2020 at 14:56:14 UTC, Gregory wrote:

 There's a clear problem with the current DIP process. 
 DIP1028 has made that clear.


 I disagree. The process itself is working as intended.


 Responses like this are part of the problem (similar to 
 Walter's responses).

 If you want to explain how the above 2 paragraphs you cropped 
 out aren't problematic, then I might be willing to reconsider 
 my viewpoint. But as you've demonstrated, the problem extends 
 fast past Walter.


 I repeat: the process is working as intended. That no one 
 succeeded in convincing the DIP author to revise the DIP is not 
 a failure of the process. That the decision to approve is 
 unpopular is not a failure of the process.

 Whether or not the language maintainers should be evaluating 
 their own proposals is an issue with the decision making, not 
 with the entire process.


Let me try and make it simpler for you so you can understand, 
answer this question only, and if you talk about anything about 
the process you've failed.

The fact a major part of the reasoning behind DIP1028 (aka 
greenwashing) wasn't brought up for criticism as part of the 
debate until after the DIP was already accepted, do you see this 
as a problem? Yes or no?


 That no one succeeded in convincing the DIP author to revise 
 the DIP is not a failure of the process.


Read this for a second. The *AUTHOR* of a DIP wasn't convinced 
their own idea wasn't good enough to write a DIP for. This is the 
equivalent of having a jury start with a presumption of guilt, 
where the jury is the victim.
May 28 2020
next sibling parent Ethan <gooberman gmail.com> writes:
On Thursday, 28 May 2020 at 19:56:53 UTC, Gregory wrote:

 Let me try and make it simpler for you so you can understand, 
 answer this question only, and if you talk about anything about 
 the process you've failed.


Nope. In your own quoted chain there, you start by saying 
"there's a problem with the process" and then stipulate that a 
response to this cannot talk about the process.

At this point, you're ignoring the rest of the thread for the 
sake of arguing.

Please stop.
May 28 2020
prev sibling next sibling parent Patrick Schluter <Patrick.Schluter bbox.fr> writes:
On Thursday, 28 May 2020 at 19:56:53 UTC, Gregory wrote:

 On Thursday, 28 May 2020 at 17:38:15 UTC, Mike Parker wrote:

 On Thursday, 28 May 2020 at 17:21:05 UTC, Gregory wrote:

 [...]


 I repeat: the process is working as intended. That no one 
 succeeded in convincing the DIP author to revise the DIP is 
 not a failure of the process. That the decision to approve is 
 unpopular is not a failure of the process.

 Whether or not the language maintainers should be evaluating 
 their own proposals is an issue with the decision making, not 
 with the entire process.


 Let me try and make it simpler for you so you can understand, 
 answer this question only, and if you talk about anything about 
 the process you've failed.

 The fact a major part of the reasoning behind DIP1028 (aka 
 greenwashing) wasn't brought up for criticism as part of the 
 debate until after the DIP was already accepted, do you see 
 this as a problem? Yes or no?


The issue was brought up during the discussion round. The thing 
was, and that was why people were so frustrated, the DIP was 
accepted as is WITHOUT taking up any feedback. This, per se, was 
not a fault in the process, but on the DIP author to ignore the 
feedback.


 That no one succeeded in convincing the DIP author to revise 
 the DIP is not a failure of the process.


 Read this for a second. The *AUTHOR* of a DIP wasn't convinced 
 their own idea wasn't good enough to write a DIP for. This is 
 the equivalent of having a jury start with a presumption of 
 guilt, where the jury is the victim.
May 28 2020
prev sibling parent jmh530 <john.michael.hall gmail.com> writes:
On Thursday, 28 May 2020 at 19:56:53 UTC, Gregory wrote:

 [snip]



 The fact a major part of the reasoning behind DIP1028 (aka 
 greenwashing) wasn't brought up for criticism as part of the 
 debate until after the DIP was already accepted, do you see 
 this as a problem? Yes or no?


This is factually incorrect.

The issue extern(C) issue was brought up in the initial Community 
Review by Dennis [1] and Steven [2, 3]. I don't see Walter having 
addressed it in the initial Community Review. There was greater 
discussion in the Feedback thread [4] and Final Review [5] by 
more people. The DIP was also updated to incorporate the feedback 
[6], though the DIP author did not agree with the criticism. It 
has also been subsequently updated as part of the formal 
assessment.

[1] 
https://forum.dlang.org/post/cbuddhlodnmbczrfhqdz forum.dlang.org
[2] https://forum.dlang.org/post/qv62af$ui4$1 digitalmars.com
[3] https://forum.dlang.org/post/qv66ii$17eu$1 digitalmars.com
[4] 
https://forum.dlang.org/post/wkdpnzarkbtqryighzpx forum.dlang.org
[5] 
https://forum.dlang.org/post/jelbtgegkwcjhzwzesig forum.dlang.org
[6] 
https://github.com/dlang/DIPs/blob/master/DIPs/accepted/DIP1028.md
May 28 2020
prev sibling parent Aliak <something something.com> writes:
On Thursday, 28 May 2020 at 17:38:15 UTC, Mike Parker wrote:

 On Thursday, 28 May 2020 at 17:21:05 UTC, Gregory wrote:

 On Thursday, 28 May 2020 at 16:27:56 UTC, Mike Parker wrote:

 On Thursday, 28 May 2020 at 14:56:14 UTC, Gregory wrote:

 There's a clear problem with the current DIP process. 
 DIP1028 has made that clear.


 I disagree. The process itself is working as intended.


 Responses like this are part of the problem (similar to 
 Walter's responses).

 If you want to explain how the above 2 paragraphs you cropped 
 out aren't problematic, then I might be willing to reconsider 
 my viewpoint. But as you've demonstrated, the problem extends 
 fast past Walter.


 I repeat: the process is working as intended. That no one 
 succeeded in convincing the DIP author to revise the DIP is not 
 a failure of the process. That the decision to approve is 
 unpopular is not a failure of the process.

 Whether or not the language maintainers should be evaluating 
 their own proposals is an issue with the decision making, not 
 with the entire process.


Process: a series of actions or steps taken in order to achieve a 
particular end.

If the end is the decision, then that’s part of the process.

If the end is “a proposal that can be submitted for consideration 
to the language maintainers” then I guess the process is fine, 
but when the dip wither is a language maintainer then it’s a 
farce instead.
May 28 2020
prev sibling parent reply Bastiaan Veelo <Bastiaan Veelo.net> writes:
On Thursday, 28 May 2020 at 13:28:00 UTC, Mike Parker wrote:

 On Thursday, 28 May 2020 at 12:16:37 UTC, IGotD- wrote:

 On Wednesday, 27 May 2020 at 15:22:54 UTC, Ethan wrote:

 Distracted boyfriend format: https://imgflip.com/i/430bdh


 This one is quite telling what actually happened. The only 
 thing that is missing is adding Walters face on that guy. I 
 was sure that DIP 1028 would have to take another round 
 because there were a few open issues with this DIP that many 
 pointed out. Instead DIP 1028 was rushed and of course Walter 
 really wants this DIP to go through as it is "the new hot 
 chick in town", which he has said himself that safe by default 
 is one of the highest priorities. So things were rushed ....


 The DIP was not rushed. It went through the same steps as every 
 other DIP.

 https://github.com/dlang/DIPs


But the DIP text itself did not convince the other language 
maintainer. A phone call did. It did not go through on its own 
merits.

— Bastiaan.
May 28 2020
parent reply Ethan <gooberman gmail.com> writes:
On Thursday, 28 May 2020 at 20:55:23 UTC, Bastiaan Veelo wrote:

 But the DIP text itself did not convince the other language 
 maintainer. A phone call did. It did not go through on its own 
 merits.


Even with a board of more than two members, I'd expect them to 
discuss dissenting opinions before coming to a conclusion.

Discussion isn't a problem here, it's impartiality (and lack 
thereof).
May 28 2020
next sibling parent reply Steven Schveighoffer <schveiguy gmail.com> writes:
On 5/28/20 4:59 PM, Ethan wrote:

 On Thursday, 28 May 2020 at 20:55:23 UTC, Bastiaan Veelo wrote:

 But the DIP text itself did not convince the other language 
 maintainer. A phone call did. It did not go through on its own merits.


 
 Even with a board of more than two members, I'd expect them to discuss 
 dissenting opinions before coming to a conclusion.
 
 Discussion isn't a problem here, it's impartiality (and lack thereof).


I have to say, if Walter convinced 2 people, or some other DIP author 
convinced Walter and Atila, I still wouldn't accept the result.

I don't understand this discussion at all. The conclusion was just 
basically wrong. No matter how many people you convince that the Earth 
is flat, it's still not.

-Steve
May 28 2020
next sibling parent Ethan <gooberman gmail.com> writes:
On Thursday, 28 May 2020 at 21:09:02 UTC, Steven Schveighoffer 
wrote:

 I have to say, if Walter convinced 2 people, or some other DIP 
 author convinced Walter and Atila, I still wouldn't accept the 
 result.

 I don't understand this discussion at all. The conclusion was 
 just basically wrong. No matter how many people you convince 
 that the Earth is flat, it's still not.

 -Steve


My memes would indeed still apply, with the added benefit that 
this thread wouldn't be hijacked for pages.
May 28 2020
prev sibling parent Johannes Loher <johannes.loher fg4f.de> writes:
Am 28.05.20 um 23:09 schrieb Steven Schveighoffer:

 
 I have to say, if Walter convinced 2 people, or some other DIP author
 convinced Walter and Atila, I still wouldn't accept the result.
 
 I don't understand this discussion at all. The conclusion was just
 basically wrong. No matter how many people you convince that the Earth
 is flat, it's still not.
 
 -Steve


While there is strong scientific evidence that the earth is not flat,
it's not that easy to judge whether DIP1028 in its current for is good
or bad.

Personally, I agree with your opinion but not everybody does. And it is
still only an opinion (we cannot claim that it is the truth without
providing scientific evidence).

There are indeed some arguments that support Walter's point of view. And
while I think that they are outweighed by a large margin by the
arguments against the DIP, in the end it comes down to weighing these
arguments against each other. And apparently opinions regarding the
weight of these arguments differ a lot.
May 28 2020
prev sibling parent Johannes Pfau <nospam example.com> writes:
Am Thu, 28 May 2020 20:59:19 +0000 schrieb Ethan:


 On Thursday, 28 May 2020 at 20:55:23 UTC, Bastiaan Veelo wrote:

 But the DIP text itself did not convince the other language maintainer.
 A phone call did. It did not go through on its own merits.


 
 Even with a board of more than two members, I'd expect them to discuss
 dissenting opinions before coming to a conclusion.
 
 Discussion isn't a problem here, it's impartiality (and lack thereof).


To put it more explicitly, discussion between review board members is 
expected.

Discussion between DIP author and review board considering technical 
details: I'm not sure. Ideally a DIP should convey all important 
information on its own. A direct technical discussion between DIP author 
and review board is then not necessary.

-- 
Johannes
May 28 2020
prev sibling parent reply Ethan <gooberman gmail.com> writes:
On Thursday, 28 May 2020 at 12:16:37 UTC, IGotD- wrote:

 he has said himself that safe by default is one of the highest 
 priorities.


I've stated my position previously around these parts, but in 
summary:

 safe and  pure by default is really important for asynchronous 
code, and I'm all for it. I also think it's a big enough change 
that it warrants a new major language version as it will provably 
break old code and backwards compatibility will be a nightmare to 
maintain.

But there's a meme for every occasion, and my view on the 
outright hack to apply  safe to D2 code via this DIP is 
summarised with: 
https://media.giphy.com/media/dCdGHgF7yFHFK/200.gif

 safe and  pure is to guarantee my programmers don't write bad 
code.  safe applied to code DMD cannot parse is leaving a hole in 
the language security that needs to be measured in Astronomical 
Units.
May 28 2020
parent reply Q. Schroll <qs.il.paperinik gmail.com> writes:
On Thursday, 28 May 2020 at 16:59:36 UTC, Ethan wrote:

  safe and  pure is to guarantee my programmers don't write bad 
 code.


I'm tempted to say "No, just no!" to this, but that would be 
equally wrong.
First and foremost, both are a tool to tell the compiler to error 
on code that does things that weren't intended by the 
programmers.  safe really only buys you those checks; pure gives 
you more: Optimizations (mostly theoretically) and unique 
objects: Values returned by a pure constructor (potentially any 
function, but I'm not sure) are implicitly convertible to 
immutable (if certain additional constraints are satisfied). 
Also, pure code is mostly not the source of race conditions in a 
concurrent execution.
May 30 2020
parent welkam <wwwelkam gmail.com> writes:
I cant believe I forgot about this...
Current state of DIP 1028
https://youtu.be/j9V78UbdzWI?t=24
Jun 10 2020
prev sibling next sibling parent JN <666total wp.pl> writes:
On Wednesday, 27 May 2020 at 15:22:54 UTC, Ethan wrote:

 Distracted boyfriend format: https://imgflip.com/i/430bdh

 Two buttons format: https://imgflip.com/i/430bi3


I'm late to the party, but: 
https://www.captiongenerator.com/1862162/DIP-1028
May 29 2020
prev sibling parent bauss <jj_1337 live.dk> writes:
On Wednesday, 27 May 2020 at 15:22:54 UTC, Ethan wrote:

 Distracted boyfriend format: https://imgflip.com/i/430bdh

 Two buttons format: https://imgflip.com/i/430bi3

 Drake format: https://imgflip.com/i/430bl4

 Galaxy brain format: https://imgflip.com/i/430bx1

 "Is this a" format: https://imgflip.com/i/430ct1

 Boromir format: https://imgflip.com/i/430cyv

 Change my mind format: https://imgflip.com/i/430d3w

 Uno format: https://imgflip.com/i/430d9n

 Exit ramp format: https://imgflip.com/i/430djd

 Yelling at cat format: https://imgflip.com/i/430ees

 Hard to swallow pill format: https://imgflip.com/i/430eoa

 Scroll of truth format: https://imgflip.com/i/430evf

 Buzz Lightyear format: https://imgflip.com/i/430f4n

 Oprah format: https://imgflip.com/i/430f9k

 And one last one: https://imgflip.com/i/430f08


Here we go.

The political downfall of D 2020 - Third in the trilogy
May 29 2020