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

Re: We need a language design process.

Thread Previous | Thread Next
From:
David Golden
Date:
December 30, 2017 16:07
Subject:
Re: We need a language design process.
Message ID:
CAOeq1c-E-6T3QinLJV=10WT1E-sB2hEKxmggvQij30ky2wTmLg@mail.gmail.com
On Fri, Dec 29, 2017 at 7:12 PM, Rocco Caputo <rcaputo@pobox.com> wrote:

> Expectations have been managed poorly.  One solution is to take a hard
> line on experimental features.  If the public knows the Porters mean
> business, they'll stop YOLOing so much, and the flag might work as
> originally intended.
>

I think this is right.  This given/when situation is the first real test of
the experimental designation.  If p5p blinks removing an experimental
feature because of breakage -- notwithstanding the unusual retroactive
application -- then p5p loses all credibility over the meaning of the term.

I think either 'given/when' has to go, or 'experimental' has to go.

David

-- 
David Golden <xdg@xdg.me> Twitter/IRC/GitHub: @xdg
Thread Previous | Thread Next

nntp.perl.org: Perl Programming lists via nntp and http.
Comments to Ask Bjørn Hansen at ask@perl.org | Group listing | About