On Thursday, 11 February 2016 at 11:46:44 UTC, Joakim wrote:
That's why I differentiated between getting a team on the same
page and high-quality coherent designs. The former may get
more done, but usually not at high quality. Read up more at
the Linus links I gave to get the alternate perspective, of how
to do it _without_ consensus.
Linux is not a good example. Linux is too high profile and can
afford massive churn. That is highly inefficient use of
programmer resources.
On the other hand, that means only those who really know or are
willing to spend the time learning the codebase can compete
with you, ie new competition can't get going as fast. There
are both pros and cons to being early.
Mostly cons. There are very few potential customers. And most
likely no local customers, which are the most attractive ones.
How is Loci in any way a fork of D? It may be similar in its
features and goals, but it doesn't appear to fork any dmd or D
code.
I didn't say fork. I was talking about people who have given up
on the D development process and created their own language in
the same catagory as C++ and D.
If you believe those languages' priorities are "not entirely
well founded," that's an opportunity for you to get it right. :)
Sure, I'm thinking about it. But I currently think
WebAssembly/JavaScript + Linux server are the most important
targets, so maybe going from scratch is less work, actually.
But sure, building a new language over Rust, D or Go is an option.
As the original post noted, both need and want are irrelevant,
if you're unwilling to code.
Nobody are unwilling to code. Most people are unwilling to manage
a project or invest in a project that isn't properly managed.
What you need is a well managed project with a clear vision,
clear goals and good leadership.
And please don't point at Linus, he is not a particularly
effective leader, but probably does well as a manager. But Posix
was already given... The broad strokes for a monolithic kernel is
kinda given. He just happend to whip up something at the right
time, that many people had been looking for (free unix).
I don't use or follow C++, but stuff like CTFE has been
mentioned in this forum before.
Well, constexpr functions can replace convoluted template
programming. Not sure if that is related to D.
A lot of solo devs using D to go in the same general direction
will work too, probably a lot better than consensus.
Well, not sure what we are talking about here. Clearly, you need
consensus among said devs if you are going to change the language
so that it can either support better manual memory managment or
faster garbage collection?
According to Linus, linux never had such a consensus, why did
it succeed?
Because there was no free Unix on x86 and the CPUs at that point
in time had MMUs. Many people who used Unix at work or on campus
wanted Unix at home too. Many students used Minix in their OS
course, and disliked the non-free license. So you basically had a
fairly large group of people willing to throw in weeks and
months, if not years in the early stages of the project.
Yes. But it could be simple. Like.
1. full feature freeze
2. heavy refactoring
3. full documentation of module x, y and z.
+ some details on goals and planning
Such restarts rarely work out in the best of circumstances, ie
a company with lots of money, even more so in a volunteer
community. Not saying it can't or shouldn't be done, just that
incremental improvement is more likely.
Refactoring and documentation isn't a restart.
It is common hygiene!
But python has not emerged from that scripting language niche
either, and I think you greatly overestimate how well C++11 is
doing.
Python was inspired by a language used for teaching programming,
but was geared to more advanced programmers. Not sure what you
mean by Python not having emerged?
Those who want D to specialize more should heed Linus's words.
Can you paraphase those words in a condensed manner that is
relevant to programming languages? I don't get the argument.
