Re: Trip notes from Israel

2017-05-27 Thread Ola Fosheim Grostad via Digitalmars-d-announce

On Saturday, 27 May 2017 at 20:21:56 UTC, Meta wrote:
On Saturday, 27 May 2017 at 10:50:34 UTC, Ola Fosheim Grøstad 
wrote:
Don't mistake my intentions. I proposed removing `body` because 
not being able to use it as a symbol name is often complained 
about on the forums, because it is a small, manageable and 
understandable change, because it is a net (admittedly tiny) 
improvement to the language, and because I wanted to write a


Sure, there are many small improvements that could be made, but 
this is a lot of bureaucracy for the 15 minutes it takes to turn 
it into a contextual keyword...




Re: Trip notes from Israel

2017-05-27 Thread Ola Fosheim Grøstad via Digitalmars-d-announce

On Friday, 26 May 2017 at 16:55:44 UTC, Joakim wrote:
On Friday, 26 May 2017 at 11:32:21 UTC, Andrei Alexandrescu 
wrote:
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. 
Unfortunately.


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.


True.

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 
deliberation.


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 
implementation cost.


Democracy is great for building big things if the vision is clear 
and shared.


Democracy is great for pointing out where the systemic problems 
are.


Democracy is great for adapting something that is complete to new 
use cases.


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 
all possible.


But it is rather inconsequential and rather inefficient use of 
resources. Which will happen to any project without a list of 
priorities.