On Friday, 26 May 2017 at 16:55:44 UTC, Joakim wrote:
On Friday, 26 May 2017 at 11:32:21 UTC, Andrei Alexandrescu
Walter and I have implicitly fostered a kind of meritocracy
whereby it's the point/argument that matters.
I don't see any evidence of this statement being true.
That's because that's all that matters. It is what almost
every worthwhile organization aspires to, though very few get
there. Doing anything else would be a mistake.
Of course, like anything, debate can be overdone and you're
probably right that it has been at times here. But an open
source project is a fundamentally different thing than a
startup, it requires much more community involvement and
Right, feedback and arguments about semantics are good, feedback
on usability or integration problems are good.
What is not good is lifting out design-issues into small packages
and trying to fix them one-by-one with a strong emphasis on
Democracy is great for building big things if the vision is clear
Democracy is great for pointing out where the systemic problems
Democracy is great for adapting something that is complete to new
Democracy is not great for innovation, designing new solution,
creating good UI experiences or even engineering...
So, why-oh-why so much effort on writing DIPs on stuff like
pre/post condition syntax? This has to be designed into a whole
and would be better done by a small team of designers taking the
_problems_ into account consulting experts on the specifics of
the area. But if you want expertise you actually have to be
interested in learning about that topic instead of defending what
is there already.
Anyway, if people sense that semantic changes are too hard to get
through I guess they will aim for something that is on the
surface (like "body"). As a symbolic act to see if change is at
But it is rather inconsequential and rather inefficient use of
resources. Which will happen to any project without a list of