I decided to do so myself:
I've been largely absent from this conversation because I would've
found myself countering about 2/3 of the stuff in this thread (not
just from Dmitrii), and the two TC39 members that've been
significantly active in this thread didn't really do a great job
explaining why he was wrong. (mostly missing context)
PSA for others: As for the incivility, please keep that crap off this
list. I'm not pointing any fingers (unlike others), but please, keep
this list respectful and mature.
Looking for web consulting? Or a new website?
Send me an email and we can get started.
On Sun, Aug 6, 2017 at 7:43 AM, Andrei Neculau <andrei.necu...@gmail.com> wrote:
> 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 to digest
> 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
es-discuss mailing list