www.digitalmars.com         C & C++   DMDScript  

digitalmars.D - safe/DIP1028 explained in meme form

reply Ethan <gooberman gmail.com> writes:
Distracted boyfriend format: https://imgflip.com/i/430bdh

Two buttons format: https://imgflip.com/i/430bi3

Drake format: https://imgflip.com/i/430bl4

Galaxy brain format: https://imgflip.com/i/430bx1

"Is this a" format: https://imgflip.com/i/430ct1

Boromir format: https://imgflip.com/i/430cyv

Change my mind format: https://imgflip.com/i/430d3w

Uno format: https://imgflip.com/i/430d9n

Exit ramp format: https://imgflip.com/i/430djd

Yelling at cat format: https://imgflip.com/i/430ees

Hard to swallow pill format: https://imgflip.com/i/430eoa

Scroll of truth format: https://imgflip.com/i/430evf

Buzz Lightyear format: https://imgflip.com/i/430f4n

Oprah format: https://imgflip.com/i/430f9k

And one last one: https://imgflip.com/i/430f08
May 27
next sibling parent WebFreak001 <d.forum webfreak.org> writes:
On Wednesday, 27 May 2020 at 15:22:54 UTC, Ethan wrote:
 [...]
I love these thank you for making them xD My favorites (in no particular order): https://imgflip.com/i/430bx1 https://imgflip.com/i/430ct1 https://imgflip.com/i/430eoa https://imgflip.com/i/430f4n Is there any twitter bot which posts memes like these every 30 minutes which we can just retweet all the time?
May 27
prev sibling next sibling parent Johannes Loher <johannes.loher fg4f.de> writes:
Am 27.05.20 um 17:22 schrieb Ethan:
 [...]
I had to laugh so hard :D Thanks for lightening the mood in this difficult situation :)
May 27
prev sibling next sibling parent ag0aep6g <anonymous example.com> writes:
On 27.05.20 17:22, Ethan wrote:
[...]

I love it. Have a thumbs up. https://i.imgur.com/bDnPcxV.gif
May 27
prev sibling next sibling parent Bruce Carneal <bcarneal gmail.com> writes:
On Wednesday, 27 May 2020 at 15:22:54 UTC, Ethan wrote:
 Distracted boyfriend format: https://imgflip.com/i/430bdh

 Two buttons format: https://imgflip.com/i/430bi3

 Drake format: https://imgflip.com/i/430bl4

 Galaxy brain format: https://imgflip.com/i/430bx1

 "Is this a" format: https://imgflip.com/i/430ct1

 Boromir format: https://imgflip.com/i/430cyv

 Change my mind format: https://imgflip.com/i/430d3w

 Uno format: https://imgflip.com/i/430d9n

 Exit ramp format: https://imgflip.com/i/430djd

 Yelling at cat format: https://imgflip.com/i/430ees

 Hard to swallow pill format: https://imgflip.com/i/430eoa
Very much appreciated. A truth revealing comic is worth more than a thousand words and you've given us several.
May 27
prev sibling next sibling parent Andrei Alexandrescu <SeeWebsiteForEmail erdani.com> writes:
On 5/27/20 11:22 AM, Ethan wrote:
 Distracted boyfriend format: https://imgflip.com/i/430bdh
 
 Two buttons format: https://imgflip.com/i/430bi3
 
 Drake format: https://imgflip.com/i/430bl4
 
 Galaxy brain format: https://imgflip.com/i/430bx1
 
 "Is this a" format: https://imgflip.com/i/430ct1
 
 Boromir format: https://imgflip.com/i/430cyv
 
 Change my mind format: https://imgflip.com/i/430d3w
 
 Uno format: https://imgflip.com/i/430d9n
 
 Exit ramp format: https://imgflip.com/i/430djd
 
 Yelling at cat format: https://imgflip.com/i/430ees
 
 Hard to swallow pill format: https://imgflip.com/i/430eoa
 
 Scroll of truth format: https://imgflip.com/i/430evf
 
 Buzz Lightyear format: https://imgflip.com/i/430f4n
 
 Oprah format: https://imgflip.com/i/430f9k
 
 And one last one: https://imgflip.com/i/430f08
I laughed so hard!!!
May 27
prev sibling next sibling parent reply Ethan <gooberman gmail.com> writes:
On Wednesday, 27 May 2020 at 15:22:54 UTC, Ethan wrote:
 ...
Facebook form: https://imgflip.com/i/430nrt Same picture form: https://imgflip.com/i/430o6e This is fine form: https://imgflip.com/i/430ogf All the things form: https://imgflip.com/i/430ola Too high form: https://imgflip.com/i/430opt Morpheus form: https://imgflip.com/i/430osn Mufasa and Simba form: https://imgflip.com/i/430oxh If I had the time and patience, I'd caption that classic scene from Marathon Man... https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mqrpPaNm8yw But I'm done for now.
May 27
next sibling parent reply Manu <turkeyman gmail.com> writes:
On Thu, May 28, 2020 at 2:30 AM Ethan via Digitalmars-d <
digitalmars-d puremagic.com> wrote:

 On Wednesday, 27 May 2020 at 15:22:54 UTC, Ethan wrote:
 ...
Facebook form: https://imgflip.com/i/430nrt Same picture form: https://imgflip.com/i/430o6e This is fine form: https://imgflip.com/i/430ogf All the things form: https://imgflip.com/i/430ola Too high form: https://imgflip.com/i/430opt Morpheus form: https://imgflip.com/i/430osn Mufasa and Simba form: https://imgflip.com/i/430oxh If I had the time and patience, I'd caption that classic scene from Marathon Man... https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mqrpPaNm8yw But I'm done for now.
OMFG... Wow... what on earth happened here while I wasn't looking!
May 27
next sibling parent Arine <arine1283798123 gmail.com> writes:
On Thursday, 28 May 2020 at 02:39:16 UTC, Manu wrote:
 On Thu, May 28, 2020 at 2:30 AM Ethan via Digitalmars-d < 
 digitalmars-d puremagic.com> wrote:

 On Wednesday, 27 May 2020 at 15:22:54 UTC, Ethan wrote:
 ...
Facebook form: https://imgflip.com/i/430nrt Same picture form: https://imgflip.com/i/430o6e This is fine form: https://imgflip.com/i/430ogf All the things form: https://imgflip.com/i/430ola Too high form: https://imgflip.com/i/430opt Morpheus form: https://imgflip.com/i/430osn Mufasa and Simba form: https://imgflip.com/i/430oxh If I had the time and patience, I'd caption that classic scene from Marathon Man... https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mqrpPaNm8yw But I'm done for now.
OMFG... Wow... what on earth happened here while I wasn't looking!
A sense of professionalism.
May 27
prev sibling parent reply Ethan <gooberman gmail.com> writes:
On Thursday, 28 May 2020 at 02:39:16 UTC, Manu wrote:
 OMFG... Wow... what on earth happened here while I wasn't 
 looking!
I wasn't looking either. I don't have a ton of time to devote to non-work activities at the moment. I have to say though. I don't think I've ever seen the D community this unified.
May 28
next sibling parent "H. S. Teoh" <hsteoh quickfur.ath.cx> writes:
 On Thursday, 28 May 2020 at 02:39:16 UTC, Manu wrote:
 OMFG... Wow... what on earth happened here while I wasn't looking!
You were experiencing the opposite of this: https://www.forbes.com/asap/2000/1127/093.html When you're looking, nothing happens. But when you're not looking, things boil. :-P --T
May 28
prev sibling parent Manu <turkeyman gmail.com> writes:
On Fri, May 29, 2020 at 3:10 AM Ethan via Digitalmars-d <
digitalmars-d puremagic.com> wrote:

 On Thursday, 28 May 2020 at 02:39:16 UTC, Manu wrote:
 OMFG... Wow... what on earth happened here while I wasn't
 looking!
I wasn't looking either. I don't have a ton of time to devote to non-work activities at the moment. I have to say though. I don't think I've ever seen the D community this unified.
Yeah, I'm just desperately struggling to keep on top of my real work :/ This was a weird thing.
May 29
prev sibling parent Jonathan M Davis <newsgroup.d jmdavisprog.com> writes:
On Wednesday, May 27, 2020 8:39:16 PM MDT Manu via Digitalmars-d wrote:
 On Thu, May 28, 2020 at 2:30 AM Ethan via Digitalmars-d <

 digitalmars-d puremagic.com> wrote:
 On Wednesday, 27 May 2020 at 15:22:54 UTC, Ethan wrote:
 ...
Facebook form: https://imgflip.com/i/430nrt Same picture form: https://imgflip.com/i/430o6e This is fine form: https://imgflip.com/i/430ogf All the things form: https://imgflip.com/i/430ola Too high form: https://imgflip.com/i/430opt Morpheus form: https://imgflip.com/i/430osn Mufasa and Simba form: https://imgflip.com/i/430oxh If I had the time and patience, I'd caption that classic scene from Marathon Man... https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mqrpPaNm8yw But I'm done for now.
OMFG... Wow... what on earth happened here while I wasn't looking!
DIP 1028 was accepted, and the response is almost entirely negative. Apparently, Ethan decided to have fun with the whole thing. :) https://forum.dlang.org/post/rwjxbgsauknjjrvousti forum.dlang.org https://forum.dlang.org/post/ra79g0$2rsg$1 digitalmars.com - Jonathan M Davis
May 27
prev sibling next sibling parent reply IGotD- <nise nise.com> writes:
On Wednesday, 27 May 2020 at 15:22:54 UTC, Ethan wrote:
 Distracted boyfriend format: https://imgflip.com/i/430bdh
This one is quite telling what actually happened. The only thing that is missing is adding Walters face on that guy. I was sure that DIP 1028 would have to take another round because there were a few open issues with this DIP that many pointed out. Instead DIP 1028 was rushed and of course Walter really wants this DIP to go through as it is "the new hot chick in town", which he has said himself that safe by default is one of the highest priorities. So things were rushed ....
May 28
next sibling parent reply Mike Parker <aldacron gmail.com> writes:
On Thursday, 28 May 2020 at 12:16:37 UTC, IGotD- wrote:
 On Wednesday, 27 May 2020 at 15:22:54 UTC, Ethan wrote:
 Distracted boyfriend format: https://imgflip.com/i/430bdh
This one is quite telling what actually happened. The only thing that is missing is adding Walters face on that guy. I was sure that DIP 1028 would have to take another round because there were a few open issues with this DIP that many pointed out. Instead DIP 1028 was rushed and of course Walter really wants this DIP to go through as it is "the new hot chick in town", which he has said himself that safe by default is one of the highest priorities. So things were rushed ....
The DIP was not rushed. It went through the same steps as every other DIP. https://github.com/dlang/DIPs
May 28
next sibling parent reply Gregory <g.thompson.1892 gmall.com> writes:
On Thursday, 28 May 2020 at 13:28:00 UTC, Mike Parker wrote:
 On Thursday, 28 May 2020 at 12:16:37 UTC, IGotD- wrote:
 On Wednesday, 27 May 2020 at 15:22:54 UTC, Ethan wrote:
 Distracted boyfriend format: https://imgflip.com/i/430bdh
This one is quite telling what actually happened. The only thing that is missing is adding Walters face on that guy. I was sure that DIP 1028 would have to take another round because there were a few open issues with this DIP that many pointed out. Instead DIP 1028 was rushed and of course Walter really wants this DIP to go through as it is "the new hot chick in town", which he has said himself that safe by default is one of the highest priorities. So things were rushed ....
The DIP was not rushed. It went through the same steps as every other DIP. https://github.com/dlang/DIPs
I think everyone can agree that there's a huge conflict of interest when the person creating the DIP is also the one that is suppose to be criticising it and determines whether it is accepted or not. There's a huge difference in the level of detail, care, and explanation between one of Walter's DIPs and the DIPs done by other individuals. As is with the case with DIP1028, no where in the DIP is greenwashing mentioned. There's barely a section explaining the rationale as to why extern(C) should be safe. Walter purposefully did not explain his rationale behind the motive to make that change. He only explained it after the DIP had already been accepted. So it was never something anyone could criticise in the entire process because his DIPs don't have to explain. It just has to state what it's doing and that's not what a DIP should be; it should explain why so it can be criticised properly. There's a clear problem with the current DIP process. DIP1028 has made that clear.
May 28
parent reply Mike Parker <aldacron gmail.com> writes:
On Thursday, 28 May 2020 at 14:56:14 UTC, Gregory wrote:
 There's a clear problem with the current DIP process. DIP1028 
 has made that clear.
I disagree. The process itself is working as intended.
May 28
next sibling parent reply Adam D. Ruppe <destructionator gmail.com> writes:
On Thursday, 28 May 2020 at 16:27:56 UTC, Mike Parker wrote:
 On Thursday, 28 May 2020 at 14:56:14 UTC, Gregory wrote:
 There's a clear problem with the current DIP process. DIP1028 
 has made that clear.
I disagree. The process itself is working as intended.
Which is why the process is problematic and needs to be changed.
May 28
next sibling parent reply Mike Parker <aldacron gmail.com> writes:
On Thursday, 28 May 2020 at 16:35:09 UTC, Adam D. Ruppe wrote:

 Which is why the process is problematic and needs to be changed.
Again, I disagree. The *process* is not problematic. The issue people are having right now is with the assessment of DIPs written by the language maintainers. That's separate from the review process itself.
May 28
next sibling parent Johannes Loher <johannes.loher fg4f.de> writes:
On Thursday, 28 May 2020 at 16:48:41 UTC, Mike Parker wrote:
 On Thursday, 28 May 2020 at 16:35:09 UTC, Adam D. Ruppe wrote:

 Which is why the process is problematic and needs to be 
 changed.
Again, I disagree. The *process* is not problematic. The issue people are having right now is with the assessment of DIPs written by the language maintainers. That's separate from the review process itself.
That's part of it. But at least some people also also would like to change the fact that in the end, the decision is made only by 2 people, especially if the proposal is made by one of these 2 people. The reason is that it just is very difficult to make an objective decision about your own proposal and only having to convince one person is a lot easier than having to convince 2. People feel that DIP1028 would probably not have been accepted if we had a stricter process in that regard.
May 28
prev sibling parent Max Samukha <maxsamukha gmail.com> writes:
On Thursday, 28 May 2020 at 16:48:41 UTC, Mike Parker wrote:
 On Thursday, 28 May 2020 at 16:35:09 UTC, Adam D. Ruppe wrote:

 Which is why the process is problematic and needs to be 
 changed.
Again, I disagree. The *process* is not problematic. The issue people are having right now is with the assessment of DIPs written by the language maintainers. That's separate from the review process itself.
This is demagoguery. Gregory and Adam did not refer specifically to the review part of the process. And the process overall includes assessment.
May 28
prev sibling parent reply Bruce Carneal <bcarneal gmail.com> writes:
On Thursday, 28 May 2020 at 16:35:09 UTC, Adam D. Ruppe wrote:
 On Thursday, 28 May 2020 at 16:27:56 UTC, Mike Parker wrote:
 On Thursday, 28 May 2020 at 14:56:14 UTC, Gregory wrote:
 There's a clear problem with the current DIP process. DIP1028 
 has made that clear.
I disagree. The process itself is working as intended.
Which is why the process is problematic and needs to be changed.
For most DIPs we have two nominally impartial experts looking out for the interests of the community. In the case of 1028 we only had 1, Atila. This is a problem with the process that can and should be fixed.
May 28
parent reply Ethan <gooberman gmail.com> writes:
On Thursday, 28 May 2020 at 16:50:52 UTC, Bruce Carneal wrote:
 For most DIPs we have two nominally impartial experts looking 
 out for the interests of the community.  In the case of 1028 we 
 only had 1, Atila.

 This is a problem with the process that can and should be fixed.
No, this is where y'all are getting wrong. The process led to a review board of two. Or, essentially one in this case since the author was on the board and thus unable to be impartial. The board is the area that needs expansion. The process that gets a DIP in front of and away from the board will not change if the number of board members increases/members recuse themselves for impartiality reasons/etc.
May 28
next sibling parent reply Meta <jared771 gmail.com> writes:
On Thursday, 28 May 2020 at 16:54:43 UTC, Ethan wrote:
 On Thursday, 28 May 2020 at 16:50:52 UTC, Bruce Carneal wrote:
 For most DIPs we have two nominally impartial experts looking 
 out for the interests of the community.  In the case of 1028 
 we only had 1, Atila.

 This is a problem with the process that can and should be 
 fixed.
No, this is where y'all are getting wrong. The process led to a review board of two. Or, essentially one in this case since the author was on the board and thus unable to be impartial. The board is the area that needs expansion. The process that gets a DIP in front of and away from the board will not change if the number of board members increases/members recuse themselves for impartiality reasons/etc.
We should exercise *extreme* caution when considering any steps that might expand the current bureaucracy. The thing about bureaucracy is that it tends to expand, and once it does, it never, ever contracts. You can't put the genie back in the bottle, and we shouldn't do anything rash over a single incident (you may argue that there has been more than 1 incident, but I don't think any backlash over a DIP since the new process began has been this severe).
May 28
parent reply Ethan <gooberman gmail.com> writes:
On Thursday, 28 May 2020 at 17:00:00 UTC, Meta wrote:
 We should exercise *extreme* caution when considering any steps 
 that might expand the current bureaucracy.
I agree in principle with this. Just look at the C++ board. But it's clear that an effective review board of 1 in this situation is not enough.
May 28
next sibling parent Bruce Carneal <bcarneal gmail.com> writes:
On Thursday, 28 May 2020 at 17:04:20 UTC, Ethan wrote:
 On Thursday, 28 May 2020 at 17:00:00 UTC, Meta wrote:
 We should exercise *extreme* caution when considering any 
 steps that might expand the current bureaucracy.
I agree in principle with this. Just look at the C++ board. But it's clear that an effective review board of 1 in this situation is not enough.
Yes. To follow the spirit of the DIP process, if not the letter, every DIP should have a review board of 2 nominally impartial experts representing the dlang community. To be clear, a DIP author is not impartial. We'd need another LM (language maintainer) to step in when either of the sitting LMs authors a dip.
May 28
prev sibling parent Ethan <gooberman gmail.com> writes:
On Thursday, 28 May 2020 at 17:04:20 UTC, Ethan wrote:
 But it's clear that an effective review board of 1 in this 
 situation is not enough.
American Chopper form: https://imgflip.com/i/435qvq
May 28
prev sibling parent reply Andrei Alexandrescu <SeeWebsiteForEmail erdani.org> writes:
On 5/28/20 12:54 PM, Ethan wrote:
 On Thursday, 28 May 2020 at 16:50:52 UTC, Bruce Carneal wrote:
 For most DIPs we have two nominally impartial experts looking out for 
 the interests of the community.  In the case of 1028 we only had 1, 
 Atila.

 This is a problem with the process that can and should be fixed.
No, this is where y'all are getting wrong. The process led to a review board of two. Or, essentially one in this case since the author was on the board and thus unable to be impartial. The board is the area that needs expansion. The process that gets a DIP in front of and away from the board will not change if the number of board members increases/members recuse themselves for impartiality reasons/etc.
Quite quickly it goes to the same fixed point I mentioned a few days ago: We need a few more folks of Walter's caliber. Whom we don't have. (They're in awfully short supply is part of the problem.) Define roles all we want, shuffle human resources (real or imaginary) all we want, strategize all we want, we can't get around this obvious obstacle. Much of the current kerfuffle is the panic resulting from the fact that he is just like anyone liable to make mistakes.
May 28
next sibling parent Seb <seb wilzba.ch> writes:
On Thursday, 28 May 2020 at 22:54:07 UTC, Andrei Alexandrescu 
wrote:
 On 5/28/20 12:54 PM, Ethan wrote:
 On Thursday, 28 May 2020 at 16:50:52 UTC, Bruce Carneal wrote:
 For most DIPs we have two nominally impartial experts looking 
 out for the interests of the community.  In the case of 1028 
 we only had 1, Atila.

 This is a problem with the process that can and should be 
 fixed.
No, this is where y'all are getting wrong. The process led to a review board of two. Or, essentially one in this case since the author was on the board and thus unable to be impartial. The board is the area that needs expansion. The process that gets a DIP in front of and away from the board will not change if the number of board members increases/members recuse themselves for impartiality reasons/etc.
Quite quickly it goes to the same fixed point I mentioned a few days ago: We need a few more folks of Walter's caliber. Whom we don't have. (They're in awfully short supply is part of the problem.) Define roles all we want, shuffle human resources (real or imaginary) all we want, strategize all we want, we can't get around this obvious obstacle.
I don't think that's necessarily true. We already have a few amazing people like Ian (GDC), kinke (LDC) or Timon whose opinion I/we value greatly. Especially considering that LDC and GDC also have quite some stake in development: why can't we give the current lead of both these projects at least voting rights for DIPs? Note that voting right doesn't mean that they have to vote on every DIP, but surely this DIP is one of the sadly many recent examples where the current one-man decision-making has very obvious flaws.
  Much of the current kerfuffle is the panic resulting from the 
 fact that he is just like anyone liable to make mistakes.
Yes, but isn't this exactly why he shouldn't be in charge of reviewing his own proposals?
May 28
prev sibling next sibling parent Adam D. Ruppe <destructionator gmail.com> writes:
On Thursday, 28 May 2020 at 22:54:07 UTC, Andrei Alexandrescu 
wrote:
 We need a few more folks of Walter's caliber. Whom we don't 
 have.
Let's, for sake of argument, assume this is true.
 he is just like anyone liable to make mistakes.
Indeed. 'nuff said, argument destroyed. But let me expand anyway: Walter likes to talk about aviation safety. A big part of that is remembering that all parts fail and you need to make sure that a failed part isn't a disaster that brings the airplane down. Right now we are very reliant on perfect parts. A cheap way to improve this is redundancy - engineering a 99.9% safe part is an enormous challenge, but having two separate parts each 90% safe with a system that can survive any one of them failing gives you that same 99.9% reliability. One of the important aspects of designing this system is ensuring the backup system isn't linked to the primary system. Walter has described how Boeing had two independent teams with a third team just making sure the other two hadn't coincidentally came up with the same conclusion or otherwise shared a failure mode. We might not be able to achieve excellence in individual parts. But we ought to be able to design a system that's greater than the whole of its parts. A big part of that is redundancy, yes, but it is also important to have variety, so the backup part doesn't have the same failure characteristics as the primary. We shouldn't be looking for two Walters. (well ok, having two Walters would be pretty cool. but not for this purpose). We need diversity here. It is OK to make mistakes, but if the SAME mistake is made at the same time, we haven't gained anything.
May 28
prev sibling parent IGotD- <nise nise.com> writes:
On Thursday, 28 May 2020 at 22:54:07 UTC, Andrei Alexandrescu 
wrote:
 Quite quickly it goes to the same fixed point I mentioned a few 
 days ago: We need a few more folks of Walter's caliber. Whom we 
 don't have. (They're in awfully short supply is part of the 
 problem.) Define roles all we want, shuffle human resources 
 (real or imaginary) all we want, strategize all we want, we 
 can't get around this obvious obstacle. Much of the current 
 kerfuffle is the panic resulting from the fact that he is just 
 like anyone liable to make mistakes.
I think that the obvious problem of this drama and also the D project as a whole, is that the project doesn't scale beyond a startup like project run by to close buddies. The company that succeeds hire a professional manager (typically a CEO) and the ones that don't just keep on going. There will be occasions where the founders will not agree but the third party ensures the interest of the company. I've seen this dozens of times right now and it is often when the technical staff tries to go on project management without any experience. Either the company sends some of the programmers to some kind of leadership course or similar or hire a professional, then things usually improve, a little bit at least. The company that doesn't act and believe programmers have some hereditary project management abilities, always fails with the targets and the project as a whole. What this project needs is more people on board and that's not necessarily need to be a technical expert but someone whose responsibility to ensure that the D language becomes successful. This is the difference between Rust and D. Rust has professional managers and can afford it, D has not the resources for this. The D project has two directions now, either let this where the community decide the direction of D or D should be run by some kind board. I'm not so sure about if the community should have too much to say because that might hinder the progress of D. People will always disagree so it is much more difficult. You Andrei is always welcome back. Would you reconsider even if it would less time as the board would increase? Also the panic around DIP 1028 also shows the difference in expectations of the community input.
May 29
prev sibling parent reply Gregory <g.thompson.1892 gmall.com> writes:
On Thursday, 28 May 2020 at 16:27:56 UTC, Mike Parker wrote:
 On Thursday, 28 May 2020 at 14:56:14 UTC, Gregory wrote:
 There's a clear problem with the current DIP process. DIP1028 
 has made that clear.
I disagree. The process itself is working as intended.
Responses like this are part of the problem (similar to Walter's responses). If you want to explain how the above 2 paragraphs you cropped out aren't problematic, then I might be willing to reconsider my viewpoint. But as you've demonstrated, the problem extends fast past Walter.
May 28
next sibling parent Bruce Carneal <bcarneal gmail.com> writes:
On Thursday, 28 May 2020 at 17:21:05 UTC, Gregory wrote:
 On Thursday, 28 May 2020 at 16:27:56 UTC, Mike Parker wrote:
 On Thursday, 28 May 2020 at 14:56:14 UTC, Gregory wrote:
 There's a clear problem with the current DIP process. DIP1028 
 has made that clear.
I disagree. The process itself is working as intended.
Responses like this are part of the problem (similar to Walter's responses). If you want to explain how the above 2 paragraphs you cropped out aren't problematic, then I might be willing to reconsider my viewpoint. But as you've demonstrated, the problem extends fast past Walter.
Mike has, in my experience, been both efficient at administering the DIP process and open to change. There's a difference between faithfully administering current policy and believing that that policy is optimal.
May 28
prev sibling parent reply Mike Parker <aldacron gmail.com> writes:
On Thursday, 28 May 2020 at 17:21:05 UTC, Gregory wrote:
 On Thursday, 28 May 2020 at 16:27:56 UTC, Mike Parker wrote:
 On Thursday, 28 May 2020 at 14:56:14 UTC, Gregory wrote:
 There's a clear problem with the current DIP process. DIP1028 
 has made that clear.
I disagree. The process itself is working as intended.
Responses like this are part of the problem (similar to Walter's responses). If you want to explain how the above 2 paragraphs you cropped out aren't problematic, then I might be willing to reconsider my viewpoint. But as you've demonstrated, the problem extends fast past Walter.
I repeat: the process is working as intended. That no one succeeded in convincing the DIP author to revise the DIP is not a failure of the process. That the decision to approve is unpopular is not a failure of the process. Whether or not the language maintainers should be evaluating their own proposals is an issue with the decision making, not with the entire process.
May 28
next sibling parent reply Johannes Loher <johannes.loher fg4f.de> writes:
On Thursday, 28 May 2020 at 17:38:15 UTC, Mike Parker wrote:
 On Thursday, 28 May 2020 at 17:21:05 UTC, Gregory wrote:
 On Thursday, 28 May 2020 at 16:27:56 UTC, Mike Parker wrote:
 On Thursday, 28 May 2020 at 14:56:14 UTC, Gregory wrote:
 There's a clear problem with the current DIP process. 
 DIP1028 has made that clear.
I disagree. The process itself is working as intended.
Responses like this are part of the problem (similar to Walter's responses). If you want to explain how the above 2 paragraphs you cropped out aren't problematic, then I might be willing to reconsider my viewpoint. But as you've demonstrated, the problem extends fast past Walter.
I repeat: the process is working as intended. That no one succeeded in convincing the DIP author to revise the DIP is not a failure of the process. That the decision to approve is unpopular is not a failure of the process. Whether or not the language maintainers should be evaluating their own proposals is an issue with the decision making, not with the entire process.
So the fact that the decision is made by Walter and Atila only is not part of the process? If that’s the point of view, ok, the process does not need any change. But at least parts of the community request a change regarding this fact (I am not saying that this request is right or wrong, I am just stating that it exists).
May 28
parent reply Mike Parker <aldacron gmail.com> writes:
On Thursday, 28 May 2020 at 17:46:13 UTC, Johannes Loher wrote:

 So the fact that the decision is made by Walter and Atila only 
 is not part of the process? If that’s the point of view, ok, 
 the process does not need any change. But at least parts of the 
 community request a change regarding this fact (I am not saying 
 that this request is right or wrong, I am just stating that it 
 exists).
From the README in the DIP repository: https://github.com/dlang/DIPs "Each DIP is steered through a process of public review by the DIP manager. Each stage of the process is intended to prepare the DIP for its ultimate evaluation by the language maintainers (Walter Bright and Átila Neves)." This is how I've always defined the "process". Once it's in the maintainers' hands, the "process" is finished and the decision making gets underway. So yes, I want to make clear when people claim "the DIP process is broken" that no, it is not as far as I can see.
May 28
next sibling parent Bruce Carneal <bcarneal gmail.com> writes:
On Thursday, 28 May 2020 at 17:52:41 UTC, Mike Parker wrote:
 On Thursday, 28 May 2020 at 17:46:13 UTC, Johannes Loher wrote:

 So the fact that the decision is made by Walter and Atila only 
 is not part of the process? If that’s the point of view, ok, 
 the process does not need any change. But at least parts of 
 the community request a change regarding this fact (I am not 
 saying that this request is right or wrong, I am just stating 
 that it exists).
From the README in the DIP repository: https://github.com/dlang/DIPs "Each DIP is steered through a process of public review by the DIP manager. Each stage of the process is intended to prepare the DIP for its ultimate evaluation by the language maintainers (Walter Bright and Átila Neves)." This is how I've always defined the "process". Once it's in the maintainers' hands, the "process" is finished and the decision making gets underway. So yes, I want to make clear when people claim "the DIP process is broken" that no, it is not as far as I can see.
Well, the DIP is not finally resolved until the decision is made so it's reasonable to assume that most would believe that the "DIP process" includes the decision making. Whatever label we put on it, the community is ill served when the number of nominally impartial reviewers goes from two to one.
May 28
prev sibling parent Johannes Loher <johannes.loher fg4f.de> writes:
Am 28.05.20 um 19:52 schrieb Mike Parker:
 On Thursday, 28 May 2020 at 17:46:13 UTC, Johannes Loher wrote:
 
 So the fact that the decision is made by Walter and Atila only is not
 part of the process? If that’s the point of view, ok, the process does
 not need any change. But at least parts of the community request a
 change regarding this fact (I am not saying that this request is right
 or wrong, I am just stating that it exists).
From the README in the DIP repository: https://github.com/dlang/DIPs "Each DIP is steered through a process of public review by the DIP manager. Each stage of the process is intended to prepare the DIP for its ultimate evaluation by the language maintainers (Walter Bright and Átila Neves)." This is how I've always defined the "process". Once it's in the maintainers' hands, the "process" is finished and the decision making gets underway. So yes, I want to make clear when people claim "the DIP process is broken" that no, it is not as far as I can see.
From the document https://github.com/dlang/DIPs/blob/master/docs/process-reviews.md (which the README.md links to as "The DIP Review Process"): "There are four review stages, three of which are public and open to all participants." Then it lists: - "Draft Review" - "Community Review" - "Final Review" - "Formal Assessment" To me this looks like "Formal Assessment" is part of the process. All of this doesn't really matter though. It's just words / names. What (some) people want is to change how / by whom the decision is made when the DIP author is one of the 2 language maintainers. If that is not formally part of the DIP process, fine, just change whatever process it is part of (if we actually come to the conclusion that that's the right thing to do).
May 28
prev sibling next sibling parent reply Adam D. Ruppe <destructionator gmail.com> writes:
On Thursday, 28 May 2020 at 17:38:15 UTC, Mike Parker wrote:
 I repeat
At some point you should realize that something is going wrong if you keep repeating the same thing over and over.
May 28
parent reply Mike Parker <aldacron gmail.com> writes:
On Thursday, 28 May 2020 at 17:57:16 UTC, Adam D. Ruppe wrote:
 On Thursday, 28 May 2020 at 17:38:15 UTC, Mike Parker wrote:
 I repeat
At some point you should realize that something is going wrong if you keep repeating the same thing over and over.
Yeah. That people are missing my point completely.
May 28
parent reply Bastiaan Veelo <Bastiaan Veelo.net> writes:
On Thursday, 28 May 2020 at 17:58:12 UTC, Mike Parker wrote:
 On Thursday, 28 May 2020 at 17:57:16 UTC, Adam D. Ruppe wrote:
 On Thursday, 28 May 2020 at 17:38:15 UTC, Mike Parker wrote:
 I repeat
At some point you should realize that something is going wrong if you keep repeating the same thing over and over.
Yeah. That people are missing my point completely.
Your point is that the rules were followed as intended, right? Their point is that the rules should be changed to remove bias. — Bastiaan.
May 28
parent reply Mike Parker <aldacron gmail.com> writes:
On Thursday, 28 May 2020 at 21:16:31 UTC, Bastiaan Veelo wrote:

 Your point is that the rules were followed as intended, right? 
 Their point is that the rules should be changed to remove bias.
Let me put it another way. The DIP process is something that, as DIP manager, it's in my power to change by revising the documentation. But it's not up to me to decide who or how many people make decisions about language features. That step is *outside* of the DIP process. If they wanted to, they could very well decide to implement new features without ever submitting a DIP. The reason I'm arguing semantics is that on more than one occasion I have seen people who misunderstand what the DIP process is intended to achieve (e.g., people who assume it's a community vote). When people complain that "the DIP process is broken", then somewhere down the line on reddit or discord or somewhere else I'll inevitably run into someone who considers it broken from beginning to end because they saw in the forums that "the DIP process is broken". When enough people say it, that kind of thing can spread. I'm happy to discuss changes to the DIP process and I'm willing to make them if I can be convinced they're needed. I've done it before. We all want the best process we can have. But changing how DIPs are approved is out of bounds for me and therefore not part of the DIP process. Anyone who would like to see changes to the decision-making process is welcome to send suggestions or proposals to me, however, as Bruce has done. Then I can put that on the agenda of the next foundation meeting.
May 28
parent reply Johannes Loher <johannes.loher fg4f.de> writes:
Am 29.05.20 um 05:18 schrieb Mike Parker:
 On Thursday, 28 May 2020 at 21:16:31 UTC, Bastiaan Veelo wrote:
 
 Your point is that the rules were followed as intended, right? Their
 point is that the rules should be changed to remove bias.
Let me put it another way. The DIP process is something that, as DIP manager, it's in my power to change by revising the documentation. But it's not up to me to decide who or how many people make decisions about language features. That step is *outside* of the DIP process. If they wanted to, they could very well decide to implement new features without ever submitting a DIP. The reason I'm arguing semantics is that on more than one occasion I have seen people who misunderstand what the DIP process is intended to achieve (e.g., people who assume it's a community vote). When people complain that "the DIP process is broken", then somewhere down the line on reddit or discord or somewhere else I'll inevitably run into someone who considers it broken from beginning to end because they saw in the forums that "the DIP process is broken". When enough people say it, that kind of thing can spread. I'm happy to discuss changes to the DIP process and I'm willing to make them if I can be convinced they're needed. I've done it before. We all want the best process we can have. But changing how DIPs are approved is out of bounds for me and therefore not part of the DIP process. Anyone who would like to see changes to the decision-making process is welcome to send suggestions or proposals to me, however, as Bruce has done. Then I can put that on the agenda of the next foundation meeting.
OK, now I understand why you view it that way and it makes sense. Thanks for clarifying that. Personally, I did not view it that way until now (and I believe many others also did not). For me the DIP process was the complete process you need to go through in order to get a change to the language accepted or rejected, including formal assessment. And from the documentation of the DIP process, it certainly reads that way as I have laid out in an earlier post. If formal assessment really is not part of what we call the "DIP process", the documentation needs to be adjusted to make that clear. However, from the perspective of anybody else than you, it doesn't really make a lot of sense. Why would you ever consider the process without the actual decision making in the end? For the community, it doesn't really matter that you personally don't have any power regarding the decision-making process. We want to talk about the whole process of getting a change into the language and it's just cumbersome to always say "the DIP process and the decision making process"...
May 28
parent reply Mike Parker <aldacron gmail.com> writes:
On Friday, 29 May 2020 at 04:27:18 UTC, Johannes Loher wrote:

 However, from the perspective of anybody else than you, it 
 doesn't really make a lot of sense. Why would you ever consider 
 the process without the actual decision making in the end? For 
 the community, it doesn't really matter that you personally 
 don't have any power regarding the decision-making process. We 
 want to talk about the whole process of getting a change into 
 the language and it's just cumbersome to always say "the DIP 
 process and the decision making process"...
Yes, I understand. What it really comes down to is that I'm just asking people to be more careful with their language. These forums do not exist in a sealed vacuum, and what we say here can easily be misinterpreted elsewhere or by someone with an interest in D who's looking over the forums. "It's messed up that a DIP author can decide on his own proposal" is very different from a broad claim like "the DIP process is broken".
May 28
parent reply Gregory <g.thompson.1892 gmall.com> writes:
On Friday, 29 May 2020 at 05:03:25 UTC, Mike Parker wrote:
 On Friday, 29 May 2020 at 04:27:18 UTC, Johannes Loher wrote:
  "It's messed up that a DIP author can decide on his own 
 proposal" is very different from a broad claim like "the DIP 
 process is broken".
Not that different. All the more reason for the DIP process to be fixed than leave it the way it is. You are just arguing semantics at this point to try and avoid bad PR. You care more about public imagine than due process. That's backwards.
May 29
parent reply Mike Parker <aldacron gmail.com> writes:
On Friday, 29 May 2020 at 11:14:31 UTC, Gregory wrote:

 Not that different. All the more reason for the DIP process to 
 be fixed than leave it the way it is. You are just arguing 
 semantics at this point to try and avoid bad PR. You care more 
 about public imagine than due process. That's backwards.
Well, for one, caring about D's image is part of what I do. For another, I'm not arguing against changes to the decision-making process (or changes to any part of the DIP process), so I really don't know what you're on about.
May 29
parent reply Gregory <g.thompson.1892 gmall.com> writes:
On Friday, 29 May 2020 at 11:23:22 UTC, Mike Parker wrote:
 On Friday, 29 May 2020 at 11:14:31 UTC, Gregory wrote:

 Not that different. All the more reason for the DIP process to 
 be fixed than leave it the way it is. You are just arguing 
 semantics at this point to try and avoid bad PR. You care more 
 about public imagine than due process. That's backwards.
Well, for one, caring about D's image is part of what I do. For another, I'm not arguing against changes to the decision-making process (or changes to any part of the DIP process), so I really don't know what you're on about.
So there's no problem with the process, but you aren't against fixing the process? Which is it?
May 29
next sibling parent reply Mike Parker <aldacron gmail.com> writes:
On Friday, 29 May 2020 at 13:12:22 UTC, Gregory wrote:

 So there's no problem with the process, but you aren't against 
 fixing the process? Which is it?
If you read my previous posts in this thread, I have said I don't believe the process is currently broken. But I also said this: "I'm happy to discuss changes to the DIP process and I'm willing to make them if I can be convinced they're needed. I've done it before. We all want the best process we can have." https://forum.dlang.org/post/eeiijnpjevxwlfesccnb forum.dlang.org So, yes, it really is both. I don't see a problem in the process now, but I'm open to making changes that are in my purview if someone convinces me there *is* a problem or has ideas on how to improve it.
May 29
parent reply Gregory <g.thompson.1892 gmall.com> writes:
On Friday, 29 May 2020 at 13:44:06 UTC, Mike Parker wrote:
 So, yes, it really is both. I don't see a problem in the 
 process now, but I'm open to making changes that are in my 
 purview if someone convinces me there *is* a problem or has 
 ideas on how to improve it.
There it is. So it's not both. If someone has to convince you there's a problem then you are against a fixing it. Please just stop. PR babble isn't going to smooth over this issue unless you are willing to address it.
May 29
next sibling parent Bruce Carneal <bcarneal gmail.com> writes:
On Friday, 29 May 2020 at 14:31:48 UTC, Gregory wrote:
 On Friday, 29 May 2020 at 13:44:06 UTC, Mike Parker wrote:
 So, yes, it really is both. I don't see a problem in the 
 process now, but I'm open to making changes that are in my 
 purview if someone convinces me there *is* a problem or has 
 ideas on how to improve it.
There it is. So it's not both. If someone has to convince you there's a problem then you are against a fixing it. Please just stop. PR babble isn't going to smooth over this issue unless you are willing to address it.
Given his definition of the "DIP process" I believe Mike has addressed it. I would like to hear what you think is wrong with the DIP process as he defines it. IOW what is wrong with the overall process up to but not including the decision making? I completely agree that the decision making framework is sub-optimal, and that this definition of the "DIP process" is counter intuitive. If you're talking about either of those, please clarify.
May 29
prev sibling parent reply Mike Parker <aldacron gmail.com> writes:
On Friday, 29 May 2020 at 14:31:48 UTC, Gregory wrote:

 There it is. So it's not both. If someone has to convince you 
 there's a problem then you are against a fixing it.

 Please just stop. PR babble isn't going to smooth over this 
 issue unless you are willing to address it.
I really don't understand your hostility. Nor do I understand what your issue is at this point. At any rate, this is going nowhere so I'm done with this conversation. Happy to discuss the DIP process with you at a later date if you can do so like a rational adult.
May 29
parent Gregory <g.thompson.1892 gmall.com> writes:
On Friday, 29 May 2020 at 15:26:03 UTC, Mike Parker wrote:
 On Friday, 29 May 2020 at 14:31:48 UTC, Gregory wrote:

 There it is. So it's not both. If someone has to convince you 
 there's a problem then you are against a fixing it.

 Please just stop. PR babble isn't going to smooth over this 
 issue unless you are willing to address it.
I really don't understand your hostility. Nor do I understand what your issue is at this point. At any rate, this is going nowhere so I'm done with this conversation. Happy to discuss the DIP process with you at a later date if you can do so like a rational adult.
I tell my daughter I'm not against her riding my motorbike, she just can't have the keys, touch the clutch, gear shifter, throttle, or handlebars. The logic you are trying to use isn't rationale. You are trying to deflect the issue to something else.
May 29
prev sibling parent reply Ethan <gooberman gmail.com> writes:
On Friday, 29 May 2020 at 13:12:22 UTC, Gregory wrote:
 So there's no problem with the process, but you aren't against 
 fixing the process? Which is it?
So it's not enough that you get called out on getting your facts wrong. But now you're mixing up "changing a process" with "fixing a process"? Okay then. https://imgflip.com/i/439rjd https://imgflip.com/i/439rno https://imgflip.com/i/439rvw https://imgflip.com/i/439rxp https://imgflip.com/i/439so0
May 29
parent reply Gregory <g.thompson.1892 gmall.com> writes:
On Friday, 29 May 2020 at 14:50:01 UTC, Ethan wrote:
 On Friday, 29 May 2020 at 13:12:22 UTC, Gregory wrote:
 So there's no problem with the process, but you aren't against 
 fixing the process? Which is it?
So it's not enough that you get called out on getting your facts wrong. But now you're mixing up "changing a process" with "fixing a process"? Okay then. https://imgflip.com/i/439rjd https://imgflip.com/i/439rno https://imgflip.com/i/439rvw https://imgflip.com/i/439rxp https://imgflip.com/i/439so0
TIL changing a gear in a transmission isn't fixing it. Thanks.
May 29
parent reply Ethan <gooberman gmail.com> writes:
On Friday, 29 May 2020 at 15:29:46 UTC, Gregory wrote:

 TIL changing a gear in a transmission isn't fixing it. Thanks.
https://imgflip.com/i/439zew
May 29
parent reply Gregory <g.thompson.1892 gmall.com> writes:
On Friday, 29 May 2020 at 15:34:25 UTC, Ethan wrote:
 On Friday, 29 May 2020 at 15:29:46 UTC, Gregory wrote:

 TIL changing a gear in a transmission isn't fixing it. Thanks.
https://imgflip.com/i/439zew
Never have to stop making memes if you didn't understand the meaning in the first place.
May 29
parent reply Ethan <gooberman gmail.com> writes:
On Friday, 29 May 2020 at 15:36:41 UTC, Gregory wrote:
 On Friday, 29 May 2020 at 15:34:25 UTC, Ethan wrote:
 On Friday, 29 May 2020 at 15:29:46 UTC, Gregory wrote:

 TIL changing a gear in a transmission isn't fixing it. Thanks.
https://imgflip.com/i/439zew
Never have to stop making memes if you didn't understand the meaning in the first place.
https://imgflip.com/i/43a0eg Go troll some other corner of the internet. They have plenty supplies of the following items elsewhere: https://i.imgur.com/T1hWvoE.jpg https://i.imgur.com/NA4zQUs.jpg
May 29
parent reply Gregory <g.thompson.1892 gmall.com> writes:
On Friday, 29 May 2020 at 15:43:27 UTC, Ethan wrote:
 On Friday, 29 May 2020 at 15:36:41 UTC, Gregory wrote:
 On Friday, 29 May 2020 at 15:34:25 UTC, Ethan wrote:
 On Friday, 29 May 2020 at 15:29:46 UTC, Gregory wrote:

 TIL changing a gear in a transmission isn't fixing it. 
 Thanks.
https://imgflip.com/i/439zew
Never have to stop making memes if you didn't understand the meaning in the first place.
https://imgflip.com/i/43a0eg Go troll some other corner of the internet. They have plenty supplies of the following items elsewhere: https://i.imgur.com/T1hWvoE.jpg https://i.imgur.com/NA4zQUs.jpg
Not going to bother clicking meme links, how old are you? So when he said making changes to the DIP process, you took that as he was willing to rip out, replace, and reconstruct the chasis for something that it wasn't designed for? Such as replacing an automatic gear transmission with an automatic CVT? That's what you got from that? And that's somehow my fault you misunderstood that?
May 29
parent Ethan <gooberman gmail.com> writes:
On Friday, 29 May 2020 at 16:36:58 UTC, Gregory wrote:
 Not going to bother clicking meme links, how old are you?
So hold on. You've come in to a thread *defined* by memes, refuse to engage on anything but your own poor understanding of things, and *then* start calling people childish? Go elsewhere, troll. You are not welcome here.
May 29
prev sibling next sibling parent reply Gregory <g.thompson.1892 gmall.com> writes:
On Thursday, 28 May 2020 at 17:38:15 UTC, Mike Parker wrote:
 On Thursday, 28 May 2020 at 17:21:05 UTC, Gregory wrote:
 On Thursday, 28 May 2020 at 16:27:56 UTC, Mike Parker wrote:
 On Thursday, 28 May 2020 at 14:56:14 UTC, Gregory wrote:
 There's a clear problem with the current DIP process. 
 DIP1028 has made that clear.
I disagree. The process itself is working as intended.
Responses like this are part of the problem (similar to Walter's responses). If you want to explain how the above 2 paragraphs you cropped out aren't problematic, then I might be willing to reconsider my viewpoint. But as you've demonstrated, the problem extends fast past Walter.
I repeat: the process is working as intended. That no one succeeded in convincing the DIP author to revise the DIP is not a failure of the process. That the decision to approve is unpopular is not a failure of the process. Whether or not the language maintainers should be evaluating their own proposals is an issue with the decision making, not with the entire process.
Let me try and make it simpler for you so you can understand, answer this question only, and if you talk about anything about the process you've failed. The fact a major part of the reasoning behind DIP1028 (aka greenwashing) wasn't brought up for criticism as part of the debate until after the DIP was already accepted, do you see this as a problem? Yes or no?
 That no one succeeded in convincing the DIP author to revise 
 the DIP is not a failure of the process.
Read this for a second. The *AUTHOR* of a DIP wasn't convinced their own idea wasn't good enough to write a DIP for. This is the equivalent of having a jury start with a presumption of guilt, where the jury is the victim.
May 28
next sibling parent Ethan <gooberman gmail.com> writes:
On Thursday, 28 May 2020 at 19:56:53 UTC, Gregory wrote:
 Let me try and make it simpler for you so you can understand, 
 answer this question only, and if you talk about anything about 
 the process you've failed.
Nope. In your own quoted chain there, you start by saying "there's a problem with the process" and then stipulate that a response to this cannot talk about the process. At this point, you're ignoring the rest of the thread for the sake of arguing. Please stop.
May 28
prev sibling next sibling parent Patrick Schluter <Patrick.Schluter bbox.fr> writes:
On Thursday, 28 May 2020 at 19:56:53 UTC, Gregory wrote:
 On Thursday, 28 May 2020 at 17:38:15 UTC, Mike Parker wrote:
 On Thursday, 28 May 2020 at 17:21:05 UTC, Gregory wrote:
 [...]
I repeat: the process is working as intended. That no one succeeded in convincing the DIP author to revise the DIP is not a failure of the process. That the decision to approve is unpopular is not a failure of the process. Whether or not the language maintainers should be evaluating their own proposals is an issue with the decision making, not with the entire process.
Let me try and make it simpler for you so you can understand, answer this question only, and if you talk about anything about the process you've failed. The fact a major part of the reasoning behind DIP1028 (aka greenwashing) wasn't brought up for criticism as part of the debate until after the DIP was already accepted, do you see this as a problem? Yes or no?
The issue was brought up during the discussion round. The thing was, and that was why people were so frustrated, the DIP was accepted as is WITHOUT taking up any feedback. This, per se, was not a fault in the process, but on the DIP author to ignore the feedback.
 That no one succeeded in convincing the DIP author to revise 
 the DIP is not a failure of the process.
Read this for a second. The *AUTHOR* of a DIP wasn't convinced their own idea wasn't good enough to write a DIP for. This is the equivalent of having a jury start with a presumption of guilt, where the jury is the victim.
May 28
prev sibling parent jmh530 <john.michael.hall gmail.com> writes:
On Thursday, 28 May 2020 at 19:56:53 UTC, Gregory wrote:
 [snip]
 The fact a major part of the reasoning behind DIP1028 (aka 
 greenwashing) wasn't brought up for criticism as part of the 
 debate until after the DIP was already accepted, do you see 
 this as a problem? Yes or no?
This is factually incorrect. The issue extern(C) issue was brought up in the initial Community Review by Dennis [1] and Steven [2, 3]. I don't see Walter having addressed it in the initial Community Review. There was greater discussion in the Feedback thread [4] and Final Review [5] by more people. The DIP was also updated to incorporate the feedback [6], though the DIP author did not agree with the criticism. It has also been subsequently updated as part of the formal assessment. [1] https://forum.dlang.org/post/cbuddhlodnmbczrfhqdz forum.dlang.org [2] https://forum.dlang.org/post/qv62af$ui4$1 digitalmars.com [3] https://forum.dlang.org/post/qv66ii$17eu$1 digitalmars.com [4] https://forum.dlang.org/post/wkdpnzarkbtqryighzpx forum.dlang.org [5] https://forum.dlang.org/post/jelbtgegkwcjhzwzesig forum.dlang.org [6] https://github.com/dlang/DIPs/blob/master/DIPs/accepted/DIP1028.md
May 28
prev sibling parent Aliak <something something.com> writes:
On Thursday, 28 May 2020 at 17:38:15 UTC, Mike Parker wrote:
 On Thursday, 28 May 2020 at 17:21:05 UTC, Gregory wrote:
 On Thursday, 28 May 2020 at 16:27:56 UTC, Mike Parker wrote:
 On Thursday, 28 May 2020 at 14:56:14 UTC, Gregory wrote:
 There's a clear problem with the current DIP process. 
 DIP1028 has made that clear.
I disagree. The process itself is working as intended.
Responses like this are part of the problem (similar to Walter's responses). If you want to explain how the above 2 paragraphs you cropped out aren't problematic, then I might be willing to reconsider my viewpoint. But as you've demonstrated, the problem extends fast past Walter.
I repeat: the process is working as intended. That no one succeeded in convincing the DIP author to revise the DIP is not a failure of the process. That the decision to approve is unpopular is not a failure of the process. Whether or not the language maintainers should be evaluating their own proposals is an issue with the decision making, not with the entire process.
Process: a series of actions or steps taken in order to achieve a particular end. If the end is the decision, then that’s part of the process. If the end is “a proposal that can be submitted for consideration to the language maintainers” then I guess the process is fine, but when the dip wither is a language maintainer then it’s a farce instead.
May 28
prev sibling parent reply Bastiaan Veelo <Bastiaan Veelo.net> writes:
On Thursday, 28 May 2020 at 13:28:00 UTC, Mike Parker wrote:
 On Thursday, 28 May 2020 at 12:16:37 UTC, IGotD- wrote:
 On Wednesday, 27 May 2020 at 15:22:54 UTC, Ethan wrote:
 Distracted boyfriend format: https://imgflip.com/i/430bdh
This one is quite telling what actually happened. The only thing that is missing is adding Walters face on that guy. I was sure that DIP 1028 would have to take another round because there were a few open issues with this DIP that many pointed out. Instead DIP 1028 was rushed and of course Walter really wants this DIP to go through as it is "the new hot chick in town", which he has said himself that safe by default is one of the highest priorities. So things were rushed ....
The DIP was not rushed. It went through the same steps as every other DIP. https://github.com/dlang/DIPs
But the DIP text itself did not convince the other language maintainer. A phone call did. It did not go through on its own merits. — Bastiaan.
May 28
parent reply Ethan <gooberman gmail.com> writes:
On Thursday, 28 May 2020 at 20:55:23 UTC, Bastiaan Veelo wrote:
 But the DIP text itself did not convince the other language 
 maintainer. A phone call did. It did not go through on its own 
 merits.
Even with a board of more than two members, I'd expect them to discuss dissenting opinions before coming to a conclusion. Discussion isn't a problem here, it's impartiality (and lack thereof).
May 28
next sibling parent reply Steven Schveighoffer <schveiguy gmail.com> writes:
On 5/28/20 4:59 PM, Ethan wrote:
 On Thursday, 28 May 2020 at 20:55:23 UTC, Bastiaan Veelo wrote:
 But the DIP text itself did not convince the other language 
 maintainer. A phone call did. It did not go through on its own merits.
Even with a board of more than two members, I'd expect them to discuss dissenting opinions before coming to a conclusion. Discussion isn't a problem here, it's impartiality (and lack thereof).
I have to say, if Walter convinced 2 people, or some other DIP author convinced Walter and Atila, I still wouldn't accept the result. I don't understand this discussion at all. The conclusion was just basically wrong. No matter how many people you convince that the Earth is flat, it's still not. -Steve
May 28
next sibling parent Ethan <gooberman gmail.com> writes:
On Thursday, 28 May 2020 at 21:09:02 UTC, Steven Schveighoffer 
wrote:
 I have to say, if Walter convinced 2 people, or some other DIP 
 author convinced Walter and Atila, I still wouldn't accept the 
 result.

 I don't understand this discussion at all. The conclusion was 
 just basically wrong. No matter how many people you convince 
 that the Earth is flat, it's still not.

 -Steve
My memes would indeed still apply, with the added benefit that this thread wouldn't be hijacked for pages.
May 28
prev sibling parent Johannes Loher <johannes.loher fg4f.de> writes:
Am 28.05.20 um 23:09 schrieb Steven Schveighoffer:
 
 I have to say, if Walter convinced 2 people, or some other DIP author
 convinced Walter and Atila, I still wouldn't accept the result.
 
 I don't understand this discussion at all. The conclusion was just
 basically wrong. No matter how many people you convince that the Earth
 is flat, it's still not.
 
 -Steve
While there is strong scientific evidence that the earth is not flat, it's not that easy to judge whether DIP1028 in its current for is good or bad. Personally, I agree with your opinion but not everybody does. And it is still only an opinion (we cannot claim that it is the truth without providing scientific evidence). There are indeed some arguments that support Walter's point of view. And while I think that they are outweighed by a large margin by the arguments against the DIP, in the end it comes down to weighing these arguments against each other. And apparently opinions regarding the weight of these arguments differ a lot.
May 28
prev sibling parent Johannes Pfau <nospam example.com> writes:
Am Thu, 28 May 2020 20:59:19 +0000 schrieb Ethan:

 On Thursday, 28 May 2020 at 20:55:23 UTC, Bastiaan Veelo wrote:
 But the DIP text itself did not convince the other language maintainer.
 A phone call did. It did not go through on its own merits.
Even with a board of more than two members, I'd expect them to discuss dissenting opinions before coming to a conclusion. Discussion isn't a problem here, it's impartiality (and lack thereof).
To put it more explicitly, discussion between review board members is expected. Discussion between DIP author and review board considering technical details: I'm not sure. Ideally a DIP should convey all important information on its own. A direct technical discussion between DIP author and review board is then not necessary. -- Johannes
May 28
prev sibling parent reply Ethan <gooberman gmail.com> writes:
On Thursday, 28 May 2020 at 12:16:37 UTC, IGotD- wrote:
 he has said himself that safe by default is one of the highest 
 priorities.
I've stated my position previously around these parts, but in summary: safe and pure by default is really important for asynchronous code, and I'm all for it. I also think it's a big enough change that it warrants a new major language version as it will provably break old code and backwards compatibility will be a nightmare to maintain. But there's a meme for every occasion, and my view on the outright hack to apply safe to D2 code via this DIP is summarised with: https://media.giphy.com/media/dCdGHgF7yFHFK/200.gif safe and pure is to guarantee my programmers don't write bad code. safe applied to code DMD cannot parse is leaving a hole in the language security that needs to be measured in Astronomical Units.
May 28
parent reply Q. Schroll <qs.il.paperinik gmail.com> writes:
On Thursday, 28 May 2020 at 16:59:36 UTC, Ethan wrote:
  safe and  pure is to guarantee my programmers don't write bad 
 code.
I'm tempted to say "No, just no!" to this, but that would be equally wrong. First and foremost, both are a tool to tell the compiler to error on code that does things that weren't intended by the programmers. safe really only buys you those checks; pure gives you more: Optimizations (mostly theoretically) and unique objects: Values returned by a pure constructor (potentially any function, but I'm not sure) are implicitly convertible to immutable (if certain additional constraints are satisfied). Also, pure code is mostly not the source of race conditions in a concurrent execution.
May 30
parent welkam <wwwelkam gmail.com> writes:
I cant believe I forgot about this...
Current state of DIP 1028
https://youtu.be/j9V78UbdzWI?t=24
Jun 10
prev sibling next sibling parent JN <666total wp.pl> writes:
On Wednesday, 27 May 2020 at 15:22:54 UTC, Ethan wrote:
 Distracted boyfriend format: https://imgflip.com/i/430bdh

 Two buttons format: https://imgflip.com/i/430bi3
I'm late to the party, but: https://www.captiongenerator.com/1862162/DIP-1028
May 29
prev sibling parent bauss <jj_1337 live.dk> writes:
On Wednesday, 27 May 2020 at 15:22:54 UTC, Ethan wrote:
 Distracted boyfriend format: https://imgflip.com/i/430bdh

 Two buttons format: https://imgflip.com/i/430bi3

 Drake format: https://imgflip.com/i/430bl4

 Galaxy brain format: https://imgflip.com/i/430bx1

 "Is this a" format: https://imgflip.com/i/430ct1

 Boromir format: https://imgflip.com/i/430cyv

 Change my mind format: https://imgflip.com/i/430d3w

 Uno format: https://imgflip.com/i/430d9n

 Exit ramp format: https://imgflip.com/i/430djd

 Yelling at cat format: https://imgflip.com/i/430ees

 Hard to swallow pill format: https://imgflip.com/i/430eoa

 Scroll of truth format: https://imgflip.com/i/430evf

 Buzz Lightyear format: https://imgflip.com/i/430f4n

 Oprah format: https://imgflip.com/i/430f9k

 And one last one: https://imgflip.com/i/430f08
Here we go. The political downfall of D 2020 - Third in the trilogy
May 29