On Tuesday, 5 January 2021 at 18:48:06 UTC, ag0aep6g wrote:
On Tuesday, 5 January 2021 at 18:06:32 UTC, Ola Fosheim Grøstad
wrote:
My main concern is that we need to attract more people with a
strong comp.sci. background because as a language grow it
becomes more tricky to improve and the most difficult topics
are the ones that remain unresolved (like we see with @live,
shared and GC).
I don't have that background myself, so I don't think I can
provide any insight here.
Well, what I mean is that it is not so bad if D is perceived as
an "enthusiast language", then you don't expect a flawless
implementation. If the language spec outline something that is
"beautiful" (also in a theoretical sense) and show where the
implementation needs some love then people can contribute in
areas they are interested in. If the spec is so-so, then it will
be a revolving door...
It probably would be a good idea to focus on one subsystem at
a time. Refactor, document, make a list of priority
improvements for that subsystem, and then improve/reimplement,
document, then move on to the next subsystem.
If memory management is in the center now, then that is great,
but then maybe the next cycle could take another look at the
type system as a whole.
I'm afraid I don't have anything profound to contribute here
either. I have no idea how to manage a group of volunteers
(including Walter).
Most people will shy away from the difficult, tedious or boring
bits, so by keeping focus on one subsystem at a time, one could
hope that the difficult/tedious/boring bits receive more
attention... (Nothing specific for D, just human behaviour.)
