On Friday, 26 May 2017 at 16:55:44 UTC, Joakim wrote:
On Friday, 26 May 2017 at 11:32:21 UTC, Andrei Alexandrescu wrote:
Walter and I have implicitly fostered a kind of meritocracy whereby it's the point/argument that matters.


I don't see any evidence of this statement being true. Unfortunately.

That's because that's all that matters. It is what almost every worthwhile organization aspires to, though very few get there. Doing anything else would be a mistake.

True.

Of course, like anything, debate can be overdone and you're probably right that it has been at times here. But an open source project is a fundamentally different thing than a startup, it requires much more community involvement and deliberation.

Right, feedback and arguments about semantics are good, feedback on usability or integration problems are good.

What is not good is lifting out design-issues into small packages and trying to fix them one-by-one with a strong emphasis on implementation cost.

Democracy is great for building big things if the vision is clear and shared.

Democracy is great for pointing out where the systemic problems are.

Democracy is great for adapting something that is complete to new use cases.

Democracy is not great for innovation, designing new solution, creating good UI experiences or even engineering...

So, why-oh-why so much effort on writing DIPs on stuff like pre/post condition syntax? This has to be designed into a whole and would be better done by a small team of designers taking the _problems_ into account consulting experts on the specifics of the area. But if you want expertise you actually have to be interested in learning about that topic instead of defending what is there already.

Anyway, if people sense that semantic changes are too hard to get through I guess they will aim for something that is on the surface (like "body"). As a symbolic act to see if change is at all possible.

But it is rather inconsequential and rather inefficient use of resources. Which will happen to any project without a list of priorities.

Reply via email to