On 2/15/13 11:14 AM, Jacob Carlborg wrote:
On 2013-02-15 15:28, Steven Schveighoffer wrote:
That is an overstatement. I'm pretty sure people are interested in
having serialization in Phobos.
It's been in the review queue for over two years. I've pushed for it a
couple of times to get it reviewed but got no answers. I've basically
given up now.
Here's what I think - in order to add things to Phobos and generally the
standard distribution you must revamp your entire attitude.
I have a lot of sympathy because years ago I was in the exact position.
I'd written the Loki library for C++ that included many components
deserving inclusion in C++'s standard library. As a first step I asked
for Loki to be included in Boost. The attempt was met with interest but
it soon became obvious that I'd need to go through a difficult review
and make quite extensive adaptations and changes to the library in order
to be considered. My attitude was "take it or leave it" and that just
didn't work (and in retrospect, for the better).
Part of the proposal was a policy-based smart pointer that was superior
in every way I could think of to other candidates. Yet the proposers of
those candidates were willing to go through the hard work of improving
and streamlining their proposals, to the point they got into Boost and
ultimately into the standard. With time the relative deficiencies of
that proposal was reduced by adding more kinds of smart pointers, so in
the end it all got where it is today. In contrast, I was busy with my
Ph.D. research so I didn't have the time to file away all rough edges.
That was a good lesson to learn. Applied to the situation of today, to
get anything into the D programming language requires determination,
humility, and willingness to take criticism and convert it positively. I
think assuming that Orbit is a great finalized design that others fail
to appreciate is definitely the wrong starting point. The right starting
point is asking for feedback, integrate it, and ask again, all in a loop.
Andrei
