On 6/17/2016 7:52 AM, tsbockman wrote:
What caught me off guard here isn't that Andrei had to approve it in some sense - it's that the judgment of everyone else who approved my design seemingly became irrelevant the moment that Andrei decided he could do better.
History is full of examples of individuals who decide they can do better, against all conventional wisdom, and are eventually proven correct. Andrei has an enviable track record in the industry of having disruptive ideas that later became mainstream. He's also very well paid as a consultant to give advice to the programming teams of companies. His comments are worthy of serious consideration.
This implies that the only safe way to go about design a new module, is to collaborate closely with Andrei from the start.
The goal is to have only the best in Phobos, even if the process of getting there is inefficient, frustrating, and slow. D has moved beyond the point where we can accept anything less.
A beneficial, leveraging side effect is improving the skills of the people doing the work by coaching, reviewing, and critiquing the work. Andrei's review of SafeInt has elements that apply to just about everything in Phobos - things we all need to get better at.
I'd like to see his review here morphed into a best practices checklist others can use when reviewing Phobos code.
