On Wednesday, 3 May 2023 at 23:17:28 UTC, MissPiggy wrote:
> On Wednesday, 3 May 2023 at 11:13:34 UTC, Mike Parker wrote:
>>
>> Our enthusiasm is high, and we're ready to get going. I think you'll like where we're headed.
>
> IVY may increase the probability of a particular outcome, but it cannot predict a particular outcome.
>
OK?
> You simply cannot ever know the position and velocity of every atom in the universe.

Luckily some very clever physicists have worked out that this task is a fools errand and instead one *can* model the interesting large scale dynamics of the system extremely well (until you can't, but still).

>> You're going to hear more about IVY as time goes by, and eventually,
>> we're going to start employing it more broadly in the community.
>
> Whether you can in fact 'deploy' IVY into the 'broader community'... well..that remains to be seen.
>
> It's more likely, I think, that D's 'future' will be increasingly determined by the priorities of a select group of corporations, rather than any psychological/behavioural science.

Ignoring that this statement doesn't make any sense (IVY is but a tool):

Let's not bother then eh — I'm sure Mike, who is the main liaison between these groups, hasn't put any thought into this.

On Wednesday, 3 May 2023 at 23:42:37 UTC, max haughton wrote:
> On Wednesday, 3 May 2023 at 23:17:28 UTC, MissPiggy wrote:
>> On Wednesday, 3 May 2023 at 11:13:34 UTC, Mike Parker wrote:
>>>
>>> Our enthusiasm is high, and we're ready to get going. I think you'll like where we're headed.
>>
>> IVY may increase the probability of a particular outcome, but it cannot predict a particular outcome.
>>
> OK?
>> You simply cannot ever know the position and velocity of every atom in the universe.
>
> Luckily some very clever physicists have worked out that this task is a fools errand and instead one *can* model the interesting large scale dynamics of the system extremely well (until you can't, but still).
>
>>> You're going to hear more about IVY as time goes by, and eventually,
>>> we're going to start employing it more broadly in the community.
>>
>> Whether you can in fact 'deploy' IVY into the 'broader community'... well..that remains to be seen.
>>
>> It's more likely, I think, that D's 'future' will be increasingly determined by the priorities of a select group of corporations, rather than any psychological/behavioural science.
>
> Ignoring that this statement doesn't make any sense (IVY is but a tool):
>
> Let's not bother then eh — I'm sure Mike, who is the main liaison between these groups, hasn't put any thought into this.

I don't believe my post required this kind of response. Check your motivations please.

First, I was simply stating the obvious.. that there are always things that are not under your control. You can predict possibilities of an outcome only (where such variables are in play). This is not the same as saying you shouldn't try, which was your criticism against something I never said.

Second, I was simply stating the obvious (e.g who attends these regular meetings? Increasingly, its business oriented, isn't it? That is not a criticism. Other languages have also been driven by business priorities, and have succeeded very well. Whether this is true for D, remains to be seen.

When I go on a road trip, even when I know where I want to get to, doesn't mean I'm going to get there. It also doesn't mean I'm not going to go on a road trip.

On Wednesday, 3 May 2023 at 23:24:53 UTC, Walter Bright wrote:
> This initiative has my full support.

While I have ceased using D because of my concerns about the project's future (I discussed my reasons in a previous message that don't need to be repeated), I have continued to check this forum occasionally, hoping to see the slope turn positive. Mike's message and your response are both the kind of thing I was hoping for.

While there is no guarantee that the effort Mike describes will have the desired outcome, the mere fact that the effort has been made and endorsed by you is a significant positive step.

I'm sure I needn't tell you that technical work and project management require related but different talents. I did both professionally for a very long time and I certainly was not equally good at both. You can probably guess which one was the laggard. But I have seen it done well, having worked for some really great managers.

One who deserves mention is the late Frank Heart. The ARPANet (and thus the Internet) would not have existed without Frank's unique ability to herd the brilliant cats at BBN 50+ years ago. He's in the Internet Hall of Fame, deservedly. See https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Frank_Heart. Some of the great people in the history of computer science are in the picture on that page, including Bob Kahn, who, with Vint Cerf, won the Turing Award. Both played absolutely key roles in the development of the Internet.

I really hope that this is the start of something good for this project. A lot of value has been built here, but the project has obviously foundered in an organizational way. Project management is difficult, so the trouble is not surprising or unique. The key is recognizing that the problems are happening and taking steps that have a reasonable probability of improving the situation.

I will watch how this unfolds with great interest.

/Don Allen