On Wed, Sep 16, 2009 at 3:32 PM, Reinier Zwitserloot <[email protected]>wrote:
> On Sep 15, 11:28 pm, Bob Lee <[email protected]> wrote: > > I don't know where multicatch stands. You'll have to ask Neal and Joe. If > > it's out, I'm sure there's a good reason. > > That's the crux of the situation, isn't it? > > Where's that reason? We keep coming back again and again to the exact > same point: > In this particular case, I think you just need to give people some more time. We all have a lot on our plates and there are only 24 hours in a day. > We're trying to help by explaining why the community is not responding > the way Joe had hoped for, and is instead moving towards things like > lombok. > I may need to read this thread a little more closely, but where did Joe say the community didn't respond how he had hoped? It's my understanding that Coin got close to or over 100 proposals. Those proposals also enjoyed some great feedback, from you in particular. What more could you hope for? > If you up the odds considerably by asking people to put in the > JLS efforts ONLY after giving them a tentative guarantee that if the > work is done and no surprises crop up, the proposal will far more > likely be in than be left out, *I* would definitely be a lot more > jazzed to put in that effort. I'm making a guesstimate that the rest > of the community would be similarly willing to do so. > I don't think they ever asked for JLS specs. I believe Alex is one of the few people who can actually do this. This is a bottleneck in the process, but I don't really see any way around it. On the bright side, if one person writes the final specs for everything, they're more likely to be consistent. Coin proposals are much easier to write than JLS spec. > Every other bit (and more) on the coin form eventually becomes > relevant, but please, pretty please, with sugar on top, start > including the decision process into the iterative process, instead of > asking everybody to iterate their way to loads of personal time before > eliminating all that hard work in one fell swoop by simply not listing > it on the shortlist. I can guarantee you more involvement from me, and > if I'm getting the pulse of this thread's participants right, I won't > be the only one. It would be nice if we could have detailed explanations for why each of the 90 or so proposals was turned down, but the reality is that time spent on this is time they can't spend actually implementing and integrating language features. I prefer they spend time on the latter. Bob --~--~---------~--~----~------------~-------~--~----~ You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "The Java Posse" group. To post to this group, send email to [email protected] To unsubscribe from this group, send email to [email protected] For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/javaposse?hl=en -~----------~----~----~----~------~----~------~--~---
