On Fri, Jan 22, 2016 at 09:26:12PM +0000, ronaldmc via Digitalmars-d wrote: > On Friday, 22 January 2016 at 20:28:57 UTC, anonymous wrote: > >And of all things, the logo wouldn't be a good reason to divide over, > >in my opinion. > > No, of course not. But I've saw something like this with features to > be added on the language, like for example 300+ discussion thread with > similar trend of being interposed by the "heads". > > In this case, this is not something critical by any means. But what > I'm seeing here is the lack of vote for example, someone say Walter is > against and that remains. So this is not the way a "Community" should > be driven. [...]
Huh? I thought we were designing a programming language, not running a democratic government. I don't understand where you got this strange notion from. Walter is the one who invented this language, and he has been generous enough to let the rest of us participate in its development. There is no bill of rights that says we have any say in anything at all, except that he has chosen to take heed to what we say as a mutual benefit. (And there shouldn't be such a thing as a bill of rights here either -- this is a programming language, not the governance of a country.) Plenty of successful software projects do not run "democratically" either (whatever that even means in a software project!), e.g. the Linux kernel where Linus basically has the final say in everything. Yet the Linux community is thriving just fine. I don't understand this fixation that everything must be voted on. What ought to rule in a programming language is technical merit, not popularity. T -- May you live all the days of your life. -- Jonathan Swift
