On 04/05/2013 3:55 AM, james wrote:
"Please keep unstructured critique to a minimum. If you have solid
ideas you want to experiment with, make a fork and see how it works."
It might be development policy, but it seems to me a terrible idea.
I'm sorry to hear it. We thought it a policy aimed mostly at maintaining
civility and nipping in the bud patterns of hostility and unproductive
yelling we've seen elsewhere in the free-software space. Especially
around languages.
How do you fork a requirement? (or discussion thereof?)
How do you fork a design? (or discussion thereof?)
It depends. If there's something specific to comment on, we don't mean
to discourage discussion thereof. Specificity is in the eye of the
beholder I guess. Tim's judgment (that, in this case, I quite agreed
with) was that this thread had gone well off the rails into abstract
lecturing. I did some of it -- I probably should have sent a shorter and
more polite email in the one-previous -- you did some, Nathan did some.
It wasn't getting anywhere, and it's exactly the sort of thread that
policy was intended to remind us to hold our tongues during. They just
make everyone's blood boil, produce nothing useful.
It seems to be the old 'show me the code'. :-(
It's a plea to remain constructive and focused on actual problems; and
if none can be seen through the fog of abstraction, invented numbers and
straw-men, to go experiment long enough until something specific can be
seen and described. Language design has a tendency to get very abstract,
hypothetical and philosophical very quickly; what starts as a discussion
about IO libraries quickly turns into a discussion of the relative
numerical distribution of programmer productivity. This gets us no
closer to shipping a compiler.
-Graydon
_______________________________________________
Rust-dev mailing list
[email protected]
https://mail.mozilla.org/listinfo/rust-dev
