Proof of concept for v2 - NO duplication, NO `static if` hell, NO difficulty with interoperability (page 9)

On 10/31/2021 10:32 AM, Andrei Alexandrescu wrote: > I'd say if we get rid of autodecoding that would be a solid release attainable in good time. It would also provide a model for all future evolution - v3, v4, ... I like the idea of incremental change. v2 could simply be the "no autodecoding" release. v3 would be "no gc". Etc.

On 11/1/2021 7:51 PM, Andrei Alexandrescu wrote: > On 10/30/21 9:59 PM, Andrei Alexandrescu wrote: >> https://github.com/dlang/phobos/pull/8309 >> >> Destroy! > > Made a change to the PR - now the new package is called "std.v2alpha" so as to clarify the transition process: > > 1. Add std.v2alpha > 2. Add to std.v2alpha while continuing with the normal pace of releases > 3. When everyhing in v1 was ported to v2, rename v2alpha to v2 and release. > > That way we can implement complex versions without blocking the release process for a long time. Or just `std2a`. It should not be a sub-package of std.

On Sunday, 31 October 2021 at 01:59:38 UTC, Andrei Alexandrescu wrote: > https://github.com/dlang/phobos/pull/8309 > > Destroy! I said it before https://forum.dlang.org/post/wmqipfssxluzohrhxryy@forum.dlang.org I say it again, this is NOT a technical problem this is a management and leadership problem. Destroyed!

On Tuesday, 2 November 2021 at 06:53:10 UTC, Robert burner Schadek wrote: > I say it again, this is NOT a technical problem this is a management and leadership problem. Thus it is political. Interestingly, C++ does have a solution called "inline namespace" that is meant to be used for mixing versions in libraries. So, without a prefix you get the current version (inlined namespace), but you can also ask for a specific version (explicit namespace). Not quite the same as what is being proposed, but somewhat relevant still. However, in my experience, this sometimes creates edge-cases where you get different typing behaviour related to namespace-nesting. I would be surprised if this does not happen in D as well, one way or another.

November 02, 2021

Re: Proof of concept for v2 - NO duplication, NO `static if` hell, NO difficulty with interoperability

Posted by Ola Fosheim Grøstad
in reply to Dukc

Permalink

Ola Fosheim Grøstad

Posted in reply to Dukc

Permalink

On Tuesday, 2 November 2021 at 11:25:44 UTC, Dukc wrote:

they'd need to be convinced and dare to say it loud that we can't reasonably soften the breakage.

I think you need to look at who is hit harder and if they can take the hit. Hard breakage does not hit newbies, only experienced developers. Mixed versions is very likely to add more confusion for newbies and also for more complex programs (in the future).

This is essentially political horse-trading because:

You sacrifice keeping things simple for newbies in favour of making it more palatable to experienced developers.
You a pushing additional complexity issues into the future by making it seem smoother now.

Otherwise, it is still technical. static if? version? Using multiple releases of Phobos in the same project? Andrei's solution? Definitely a most technical question.

A technical solution to a political challenge, but there will be debt to be paid later on (newbies and future complexity).

On Tuesday, 2 November 2021 at 10:35:35 UTC, Ola Fosheim Grøstad wrote: > On Tuesday, 2 November 2021 at 06:53:10 UTC, Robert burner Schadek wrote: >> I say it again, this is NOT a technical problem this is a management and leadership problem. > > Thus it is political. > Properly because this is text not face to face, I don't get what I would take from this!? Because political therefore bad? Should that be your argument, I disagree.

On Tuesday, 2 November 2021 at 11:25:44 UTC, Dukc wrote:

So I think your opinion is that we should simply break stuff hard and any proposed cure is worse than the interoperability problems that breaking stuff will cause? If that is the case, then yes it is a leadership problem from your viewpoint - they'd need to be convinced and dare to say it loud that we can't reasonably soften the breakage.

Otherwise, it is still technical. static if? version? Using multiple releases of Phobos in the same project? Andrei's solution? Definitely a most technical question.

The first paragraph is closer.
I wouldn't say we "simple" break stuff.
I would even go so far that when you break dmd/phobos you have to make a really
good case for it and have PR's open to the 50 most used code.dlang packages and
all there dependencies.

I bet, most breaking changes, will result in hardly any problems/PR's.

Forums