This thread obviously hides both lots of almost-esotheric thought process,
sometimes caught in remote discussions, and lots of emotions (and lots of
blockquoted text - it helps readability immensely if you turn that off
Dmitrii and not rely on mail/mailing-list clients to collapse it, thanks!).
If we put emotions aside, could someone just take 15-30 minutes and
coherently dismantle Dmitrii's arguments? I believe he would like nothing
more than to understand if andwhy his basis is dead-wrong and to understand
the constraints that have lead us here, and the benefits that arise from
import.meta new.target import import() etc design.
As it stands now, this thread reads more in favour of Dmitrii's logic to
the naked eye, albeit with no winner except status-quo, and I fear that has
to do partially with the fact that Dmitrii's replies have come with an
abundance of context and references, while most of the feedback that he got
was surgical in precision - pick something he said, give one argument
against it, to which he provides a seemingly logical and well built counter
argument, and the story repeats itself in multiple directions in parallel.
So once again - can someone take Dmitrii's main points and suggestions
(e.g. Introspect, System, Module), which I think he summarized in this
github issue https://github.com/tc39/ecma262/issues/968and just take them
apart one by one, highlighting how his logic is either lacking context
(e.g. you says apples and pears are different, when in fact the committee
had this discussion last year and decided they will both be fruits) or is
simply lacking soundness (e.g. you compare apples and pears, when in fact
there's a subtle difference that may be hidden to the unfamiliar eye) ?
The community as a whole will thank you, no matter if as an individuals we
may align or not.
Thank you advance,
PS: Disclaimer: I may be biased because I know Dmitrii in person, so I
might be better at seeing past his apparently-harsh language and reading
between his lines, but that doesn't stop me from having an untainted drive
language in what direction or another in general, and even more so on
specific topics which are usually easier to grasp. I believe generations to
come will benefit from such end-to-end argumentations in ways that we
cannot even comprehend now.
1997, so no need to go easy on me. Those generations to come will be even
more knowledged and critical than me, or us all put together, so lay it all
out there without mercy. Shut Dmitrii up in one single post, with arguments
that he cannot possibly counter.
es-discuss mailing list