On Tuesday, 10 February 2015 at 06:22:51 UTC, Andrei Alexandrescu
wrote:
Well I have to say something.
This proposal is a good example of a cultural lore we should
unlearn: high-churn, low-impact changes.
https://github.com/D-Programming-Language/dlang.org/pull/896 is
another example. Meaning changes with a large surface that
rewire vast areas, yet result in only dingy improvements.
I was quite surprised with your post, as you seemed on board with
this idea last year
(https://issues.dlang.org/show_bug.cgi?id=11792).
Why? Why are so many of us dedicating so much energy to
tweaking what already works, instead of tackling real problems?
Problems that e.g. - pardon my being pedantic - are in the
vision document?
We do have a strong syndrome of NIH in this community, but I
don't think it's the issue here.
You mentionned in a thread the vision documentation was stuff you
and Walter were working on, rather than "TODO list" for
contributors.
I think what we need ATM is not a vision, but milestones. What's
outlined in the doc has little value for someone who wants to
contribute.
IMO the agenda ( horribly outdated: http://wiki.dlang.org/Agenda
) is more important than the vision if you want people to work on
a specific area.
You'll measure success more effectively if you are able to
quantify (and consequently, tell you you're done with) a task. I
don't see any of the points mentionned in the vision document as
something that can be "ticked off". Beside "Create a D Language
Foundation", but I can't do it myself.
