A repository for formal proposals to improve the D programming language and its official tooling.
D Improvement Proposals (DIPs) is a repository for formal documents that propose enhancements to the D programming language and its official tooling. It provides a structured process for submitting, reviewing, and managing these proposals, facilitating community-driven language evolution. The goal is to ensure that changes to D are well-considered, documented, and evaluated by both the community and language maintainers.
D language developers, contributors, and maintainers who want to propose or review language or tooling improvements, as well as anyone interested in the evolution of the D programming language.
It offers a transparent, standardized framework for managing language improvement proposals, enabling collaborative decision-making and ensuring that enhancements are thoroughly vetted before implementation.
D Improvement Proposals
Open-Awesome is built by the community, for the community. Submit a project, suggest an awesome list, or help improve the catalog on GitHub.
Each DIP follows a defined format with clear stages, as documented in authoring and review guidelines, ensuring thorough evaluation and consistent documentation.
Proposals undergo public review managed by a DIP Manager, fostering transparency and collective input from the D community, as emphasized in the review process.
All current and historical DIPs are stored in this repository, providing easy access and a clear record of language evolution, as seen in the linked README files.
The process specifies roles like DIP Manager and final evaluation by language maintainers (Walter Bright and Átila Neves), reducing ambiguity in decision-making.
The formal stages and review process, while ensuring quality, can be time-consuming and may slow down the adoption of new features compared to more agile approaches.
The system is exclusively for D programming language enhancements, making it irrelevant for other languages or general-purpose proposal management.
Final approval relies on a small group of maintainers, which could create bottlenecks or introduce bias, as noted in the README's mention of specific evaluators.