I also agree this thread doesn't add grist to the mill. Let's cut it. ----- Gaetan
2014/1/2 Palmer Cox <[email protected]> > Everyone is entitled to their own opinions. However, those opinions should > be expressed in a polite manner. Phrases such as "Choice he (since its > mostly men)" and "mentally masturbate" do not seem to foster a welcoming, > inclusive environment. Quoting from > https://github.com/mozilla/rust/wiki/Note-development-policy#conduct: > > * We are committed to providing a friendly, safe and welcoming > environment for all, regardless of gender, sexual orientation, disability, > ethnicity, religion, or similar personal characteristic > > Thanks, > -Palmer Cox > > > > > On Tue, Dec 31, 2013 at 6:56 AM, spir <[email protected]> wrote: > >> Holà! >> >> [This is a rather personal and involved post. Press del if you feel like >> it...] >> [also, it is long] >> [copy to rust-dev mailing list: actually the post is inspired by a thread >> there "Thoughts on the Rust Roadmap"] >> >> There is a point obvious to me; apparently most people including many >> language designers don't share it, or act as if they did not: >> >> a language should be successful iff it is of high quality >> >> A kind of symmetric statement also holds; >> >> let us hope low quality languages have no success! >> >> There are various reasons to hope this, the most stupid beeing that >> successful languages influence others, present & future. This is in my view >> a symptom of our civilisation's funny spirit (read: madness), and related >> to the actual points I intend to state (if, for once, I manage to express >> my thought). >> >> Apparently, many language designers proceed more or less the following >> way: there are a few key points (for them) they consider mis-designed or >> missing or wrong in some way in existing languages (not all the same for >> every language). Thus, they want to make a language that repairs these >> points, all together. Then, certainly in fear that too many changes may >> repel potential adopters of their language, in hope to maximise its chances >> of success *despite* it breaking habits on the key points more important to >> them, they won't change anything else, or only the bare minimum they can. >> They want instead to remain as mainstream as possible on everything else. >> [4] >> >> I consider this spirit bad; I mean, very bad. This is the way basic >> design errors propagate from successful languages to others, for instance. >> [1] Apparently, it takes a great dose of courage to break any existing >> practice in a _new_ language: tell me why, I do not understand. >> >> Note that I am here talking of wrong design points in the opinion of a >> given language designer. Choices he (since it's mostly men) would not do if >> programming were a new field, open to all explorations. (There are indeed >> loads of subjective or ideological design points; see also [1] & [3]) >> However, while programming is not a new field anymore, it is indeed open to >> all explorations, for you, for me, if you or me wants it. Nothing blocks us >> but our own bloackages, our own fears, and, probably, wrong rationales, >> perhaps non-fully-conscious ones. >> >> Deciding to reuse wrong, but mainstream, design decisions in one's own >> language is deciding to intentionally make it of lower quality. !!! Funny >> (read: mad), isn't it? It is thus also intentionally deciding to make it >> not worth success. This, apparently, to make its actual chances of success >> higher. (Isn't our culture funny?) >> Then, why does one _actually_ make a new language? For the joy of making >> something good? To contribute to a better world, since languages and >> programming are a common good? [2] For the joy of offering something of as >> high a quality as humanly possible? Else, why? For fame, honour, status, >> money, power? To mentally masturbate on the idea of having made something >> "sucessful" (sic!)? >> >> We are not in need of yet another language trying, or pretending, to >> improve on a handful of disparate points, leaving all the rest as is, >> meaning in bad state. And, as an example, we are not in need of yet another >> failed trial for a successor to C as major low-level lang. >> Differences, thought of by their designer as significant quality >> improvements, are the *reasons* for programmers to adopt a new language. >> There are the _only_ (good) reasons to do so. Thinking that programmers may >> adopt a new language _despite_ its differences is thinking backwards; this, >> in addition to preventing oneself from working for the common good; by >> fear, probably; fear of truely thinking by oneself and/or of making one's >> true thinking public truely. (I can understand that, however: I often do >> not disclose my thinking by fear of the terrible level of violence, in my >> view, present in the programming "community" [hum!], and among geeks in >> general. This, rather than sharing and mutual help and cooperation, for the >> common wealth. Our civilisation... again.) >> >> I have recently decided to adopt possible differences even if i am not >> that convinced of their betterness; to give alternatives a try; to give >> them at least a chance to show us (or just me) how good they actually are, >> or not, in practice, maybe on the long term [3]. >> This may go too far; it is a personal decision. >> >> However, deciding not to change what one sees wrong is weird for the >> least. It means removing points of quality according to one's own views, >> removing chances to contrbute to a better world, removing sources of >> personal satisfaction, removing reasons for others to judge a language >> better, thus removing motivation for programmers to adopt it. Maybe, >> certainly, many programmers do not adopt a language on the base of its >> quality, only; however, this counts; people I wish would adopt my lang, if >> ever, are those people who judge first on quality, not hype followers or >> otherwise conservatives. >> What I mean is, apart from working against the common wealth, in addition >> to preventing one's own enjoyment of doing what one does, such an attitude >> may also work against a language's potential success. Is this (a factor) >> why we have no successor to C yet, what do you think? because most >> designers kept most of its design bugs unchanged? [4] just to have a >> minimal chance, should a potential successor instead break as much as >> possible? (And not have a builtin interface to C? ???) >> >> Also note that attitudes and spirits are psycho-sociologically >> contagious. In particular, fear and lack of courage and angst are highly >> contagious (in our world, with such a close to universal high level of >> anxiety...) What if more (would-be) language designers boldly thought by >> themselves and boldly assumed their thoughts? >> >> Final note: isn't it weird that such conformism is _that_ prevalent among >> language designers? Precisely the ones who should be bearers of novelty? >> the one "milieu" which could & should be a network of interacting >> counter-cultures and individual iconoclasts (idol breakers)? >> >> I do not expect anyone shares (all of) this. I just hope it may open new >> ways of thinking or questionning to a few. >> >> Denis >> >> [1] Including the funny usage of "=" for assignment and "==" for >> equality, after at least 5 decades, lol! Still my favorite syntactic error >> after dozens of thousands of hours of programming in languages which nearly >> all use this amusing convention. Why not use "if" to mean 'try' or 'switch' >> or 'foreach', and "ifif" to mean 'if'? What do you think? >> >> [2] Actually, they are both communal and social. Better quality languages >> may contribute to a better world, at a communal level because we >> programmers share code and read others' code all the time, and at a social >> level because apps are a significant part of the world's state. >> >> [3] As you certainly know, it takes time to unlearn, especially to stop >> judging something bad while it is just different. (Think at C programmers >> and their beloved code block {} braces. I for one have better usage for >> brace ;-.) >> >> [4] As an anecdote, somewhat complementary, in the course of my >> explorations about programming languages, I often stepped on lists of C >> design bugs, at least a dozen of them. Typically endless lists that take a >> quarter of an hour to read in one go, without comments. There is space to >> works for a language lover :-). If not enough, usually such critics seems >> to agree on more than half of the points (and the remaining ones may not >> figure on some lists just because the critic not think at it or did not >> study this point) (but their solutions may diverge...). >> >> >> >> >> _______________________________________________ >> Rust-dev mailing list >> [email protected] >> https://mail.mozilla.org/listinfo/rust-dev >> > > > _______________________________________________ > Rust-dev mailing list > [email protected] > https://mail.mozilla.org/listinfo/rust-dev > >
_______________________________________________ Rust-dev mailing list [email protected] https://mail.mozilla.org/listinfo/rust-dev
