develooper Front page | perl.perl5.porters | Postings from December 2017

Re: We need a language design process.

Thread Previous | Thread Next
December 29, 2017 17:58
Re: We need a language design process.
Message ID:
Leon Timmermans wrote:
>I'm not aware of any other major open source language that quite dumps new
>features on their users like we do.

We've got feature flags and experimental status to manage this.  We mostly
stopped just dumping new features onto users years ago.

>                         Late in that discussion changes were introduces
>with compatibility consequences that weren't immediately recognized as

What specifically are you referring to here?  I don't see anything
matching that description.  The only compatibility consequence that
I see that was not immediately spotted was the issue of the "switch"
feature being on by default for some existing version bundles, which
interacts with the changes in keywords, but these changes didn't really
start "late in that discussion".  I also doubt that thinking about it in
advance would have spotted that issue.  It certainly wouldn't have made
a difference to the resolution: if the changes hadn't been reverted,
I was going to tweak the feature flag setup, in exactly the same manner
that I would have if I'd been aware of the issue in advance.

>Only after that one can actually design the feature.
>After that, "Someone with time on their hands" can actually implement it

I reject the notion that a waterfall process is a good approach in general
or that enforcing such a process would solve problems.  Issues often arise
during development that were not apparent before touching any code, and
spending longer before touching any code doesn't prevent that happening.
If you enforce the sequential requirements-design-implementation process
then that just means that you can't address these problems when they
inevitably arise.


Thread Previous | Thread Next Perl Programming lists via nntp and http.
Comments to Ask Bjørn Hansen at | Group listing | About