Hello > This proposal is *huge*, and subsequent drafts are often very heavily > modified,
This proposal used to be huge, but it no longer is. The current version contains a fairly simple API with a minimal set of functions. The conceptual core of the RFC can be described in just two or three sentences. It’s also worth taking into account that the RFC does not propose anything new to the programming world. The principles are well known, and existing analogues already exist. This is very important from a comprehension standpoint. > and subsequent drafts are often very heavily modified, so that means people > need to spend an hour or two each time there's a change fully digesting it. At least since the summer revision, the RFC has not changed significantly. Most importantly, its core principles have remained exactly the same for a long time. Version 1.7 is a purely incremental change, which is clearly reflected in the history. > But regardless of the cause, there are definitely people who feel their > concerns have been dismissed (rightly or wrongly). Unfortunately, I don’t keep a log of concerns, but I generally provide feedback on all issues. However, my responses are sometimes ignored. Perhaps the language barrier is to blame? There are several specialists who have an excellent command of English, but I remember that last time their arguments were not really taken into account either. So I’m not sure that the issue is only the language barrier. This is more what I would call a “crisis of trust.” There are different groups of developers between whom there is no good communication. > there was a de facto consensus that Nikita was The Lead(tm), and so if Nikita > liked something it would probably pass because people trusted Nikita, Exactly. Changes were introduced into the language not because consensus was reached, but because there was an authority who could afford to push those changes through. So does it turn out that over all this time, not a single complex feature has been accepted into the language through a purely democratic vote? > What is really needed here, frankly, is for there to be more names on the > RFC, and more familiar names. People who have the "street cred" to be > trusted, or that we know how to engage with I could, for example, hand this project over to Daniil Gentili, if he wouldn’t mind. He is extremely competent in this area, and moreover, he likely has an excellent command of English (at least that’s my impression). Or perhaps to someone else. That’s not really where the problem lies. If that’s what will help move things forward, why not? ------ Ed
