On Thursday, 28 January 2016 at 02:59:38 UTC, Mike Parker wrote:
There's no large team, no governing body, no committee to drive development. Everyone using it needs to accept that any particular personal peeve they have with the language are only going to get changed in one of two ways: there's enough momentum behind it to cause it to percolate up to the top of the priority list for the core developers, or if you do it yourself. That's what it boils down to.
You know, this reminds me when i worked in a software company for a short while. I found it utterly aggravating. There was code i could work on and fix and do, but the whole structure of it required a number of things, including getting permission to work on it. You couldn't just work on it and get it working, you had to go through a series of steps to get approval to work on it. QA were a separate set of testers (who in my experience weren't coders so couldn't even get their tests to work), a database list of bugs and requests, and you didn't necessarily get any option of working on at all. Often i felt like i was sitting on my hands when it could have taken me 15 minutes to just fix the damn thing.
I'm not saying a committee or governing body is bad, but when it's too large (or tries to be) then it becomes it's own bottleneck taking 100x longer than needed. My own preference for coding is 1) Get it to work, 2) Optimize, 3) Beautify it.
