On Friday, 30 May 2014 at 05:20:57 UTC, Andrei Alexandrescu wrote:
Also please don't analyze this to death. It's meant to reduce friction, not increase this.
I'm not sure whether your comment was just targeted at the naming discussions, but in general, I find it very valid to discuss the details of the proposal, especially the interaction with package management.
The benefits of having std.experimental over just bundling dub with DMD must be clear and the separation well-defined. Otherwise, this change will only increase friction instead.
Personally, I rather like the idea of std.experimental being a staging area for libraries that already passed some initial round of review (be it in the form of a dub package or otherwise) to get more widespread attention before being "set in stone". We desperately need something like this, as the review process has turned out to be to rigid for fear of including suboptimal APIs, yet at the same time has failed to catch several design problems as only few reviewers typically made an effort to actually use the code.
I, however, don't think that std.experimental is a good way to gather initial feedback for a module, as the compiler release cycle is just too inflexible for that.
David
