Great points all around! Especially your conclusions on the dictator/cult dynamics of many "communities" (which are quite reflective of society as a whole) are spot-on.
One thing of course that is a hard problem, is to decide which features "fit" into a language's paradigm and which do not. If you take in any and all suggestions and wishes -- which is likely not what you're suggesting here, but I'm going to say it anyway -- your language design will deteriorate because it will be "design by committee".
And some features just need time to ripen. If you take a look at the Go generics process for example, you are looking at literally years of discussion on how to do this in a way that doesn't compromise the "keep it simple" paradigm of Go. Yes sure, Mr Pike might play a bit of a dictator role, catering to his own tastes and beliefs, and yes, the Go compiler code might just be low quality. But there's other considerations at play too. :-)
Log in to continue
We're a place where coders share, stay up-to-date and grow their careers.
Great points all around! Especially your conclusions on the dictator/cult dynamics of many "communities" (which are quite reflective of society as a whole) are spot-on.
One thing of course that is a hard problem, is to decide which features "fit" into a language's paradigm and which do not. If you take in any and all suggestions and wishes -- which is likely not what you're suggesting here, but I'm going to say it anyway -- your language design will deteriorate because it will be "design by committee".
And some features just need time to ripen. If you take a look at the Go generics process for example, you are looking at literally years of discussion on how to do this in a way that doesn't compromise the "keep it simple" paradigm of Go. Yes sure, Mr Pike might play a bit of a dictator role, catering to his own tastes and beliefs, and yes, the Go compiler code might just be low quality. But there's other considerations at play too. :-)