On Mon, 27 May 2019 12:31:22 -0700 (PDT) Liam <networkimp...@gmail.com> wrote:
Rust was irreparably damaged by delivering custom painted ponies to the most vocal and enough stubborn "representatives of the whole community". I personally wishes Go team will guard the future of Go free from such fate, as they did for past years. > a well-developed set of requirements (and revised with community input) > would have been more valuable than a design proposal which fulfills > unspecified requirements. Then ones who abode to guidelines and requirements would **demand** that someone at Google should immediately implement their proposal 'because it was much work to made this proposal in line with RFC process'. Unlike many other open sourced projects the Go compiler and tools are self contained and produce working set from a single script call. So now my opinion is that the only real way of proposing changes to Go is with one's work: git clone, git checkout -b quipintedpony, work, test, **document**, **explain why and what** then post ANNounce. Let community (and the dev-team) really see merit in your proposal. P.S. My personal feeling (I am on this list from pre 1.0 IIRC) is that Go team listen, read, then take the very nut of one or more proposals and either improve on it or — on the way — they come to the other solution that learns from proposal's shortcomings. See dev list archive around GC improvements. TC, -- Wojciech S. Czarnecki << ^oo^ >> OHIR-RIPE -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "golang-nuts" group. To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to golang-nuts+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. To view this discussion on the web visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/golang-nuts/20190527224113.5f5554b0%40zuzia. For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.
