On 18 March 2018 at 17:55, Jonathan M Davis via Digitalmars-d <digitalmars-d@puremagic.com> wrote: > On Monday, March 19, 2018 00:28:15 Joakim via Digitalmars-d wrote: >> On Monday, 19 March 2018 at 00:08:58 UTC, Manu wrote: >> > On 18 March 2018 at 17:00, Manu <turkey...@gmail.com> wrote: >> >> [...] >> > >> > I want to just justify my apparent over-reaction... I think I'm >> > not >> > the only one that feels this way fairly often. >> > Something that seems trivial only invokes over-reaction of this >> > nature >> > when there is sufficient emotional energy behind it. >> > In my case, that is represented by investing a decade of my >> > life into >> > something based on the promise (**wishful thinking?) that it'll >> > get to >> > the point where I want it to be as a tool to do my work... but >> > then >> > slowly awakening myself to the reality that that's actually >> > unlikely >> > to happen, and the longer it takes, the less likely that >> > eventual >> > reality becomes. >> > Perhaps it's breaking a delusion I imposed on myself years ago, >> > but it >> > still produces a feeling of being robbed of time and energy. >> > >> > Anyway, I suspect I'm not the only one that reaches this point >> > and >> > tends to feel this way. I've seen a lot of good people come and >> > go >> > after they 'burn out' in some way. Patience is finite. >> > There's no action item here... just wanted to share a >> > reflection, and >> > perhaps there's some takeaway for the community with respect to >> > priorities? >> >> Perhaps the community simply has different priorities than you? >> For example, my Android port has never gotten much use either, >> which is fine as I primarily did that work for myself. >> >> Nevertheless, you have to think of D as like working in a >> startup: if you see something that you think needs doing, you >> have to drive it yourself or it will never get done. Pretty much >> the same for most any OSS project too. > > I definitely agree with this. If the folks fixing stuff don't have the same > priorities as you, then there's a high risk that what you want to be fixed > won't get fixed, and that's often how things go with open source projects.
And here it comes again! I understand the reality, and echo-ing statement sounds so good to the community... but it's a terrible opinion to propagate if the goal is for D to be successful. You're effectively saying "D is a hobby/toy, therefore you can't bank on it with confidence". If I weren't a deluded zealot, there's NO WAY I'd let my business invest in this technology when the crowd endlessly repeats this sentiment. So, while it IS a practical reality, there needs to be very strong motivation from the community (and organisation) to combat that practical reality. I would strongly suggest; never say a sentence like this again. It's the wrong attitude, and it gives an undesirable impression to users. (assuming the goal is for D to be successful, and not a fun hobby for the devs) > But at the same time, if you come to D, see all kinds of great things about > it, and think that it's going to be fantastic but keep running into things > that cause you problems when you try to use D, and then those pain points > don't get fixed even after years of dealing with the language, that's going > to be very frustrating - even more so if you've invested a lot of time and > energy into it. > > On some level, the only solution is to buckle down and fix your pain points > yourself, but that can also be quite frustrating. Or hire staff who are paid to work on 'boring' issues. I would make regular donations if I could be satisfied that my decade old issues would be addressed. I wonder how many others would too?