Whether or not there was a process for contributing to the compiler, only Evan could have made the proposal to replace Signals. That's not because it takes a dictator to make bold decisions, or because Evan is so much smarter than everyone else, or anything like that.
It's because Signals were based on Evan's graduate research, and Elm grew out of that work. It would be extraordinarily insulting for someone to propose deleting Evan's thesis from his own language. That's why nobody could make the proposal unless Evan suggested it first. On Sunday, June 5, 2016 at 12:40:50 PM UTC-4, Rex van der Spuy wrote: > > Hi Everyone! > > I'm not sure that open-source contributions are always a good idea. > I want more simplicity, less syntax and fewer features :) > That's why I'm using Elm. > > Open-source projects invariably go the opposite way: contributors keep on > endlessly "adding more stuff". > They tend to end up as a steaming witches brew of badly patched together > excellent ideas and a bloated mess of pain. > That's why I'm not using React, Angular or JavaScript (and wish I didn't > have to use Node or Webpack). > > I'm pretty doubtful that if Elm were truly open source that such a > radical, well-considered, and superbly correct decision as getting rid of > signals would have ever happened. > > But, I'm just a dumb-user! > I'm only interested in using Elm for making cool stuff - I'm not > interested in or capable of contributing to its source code. > However, to my great delight I found that 0.17 addressed the four big > headaches I had in 0.16: > Signals (confusing!), Boilerplate (too much!) drag-and-drop (tricky!) and > random numbers (near impossible?) > > How did that happen? > Because I and many others inundated Elm's discussion lists (here and at > Reddit) with endless questions on these subjects. > And, someone was obviously listening closely, because all those issues > were magically addressed in 0.17 without my having to even having to glance > at Elm's source code. > Thank you, Elm! > > I also noticed that there were many extremely well-considered, > convincingly argued and excellent suggestions from the community on how to > solve these problems. > But, significantly, the way they were solved in 0.17 was better than all > of them. > > What would have happened if those excellent - but ultimately less perfect > - decisions made it into 0.17? > .... JavaScript? > > So if development on Elm needs to be slow and reject direct collaboration > in order for it to be good, then I truly hope that future development is as > slow and single-mined as as possible :) > > PS: > > (And I just want to once again thank all of you who've helped me to lean > Elm with your brilliant answers to all my newbie questions over these past > 6 months - Peter! Daniel! Magnus! Max! and others! - you guys rock! I > deeply appreciate it.) > > On Thursday, June 2, 2016 at 3:04:53 AM UTC-4, Peter Damoc wrote: >> >> On Thu, Jun 2, 2016 at 2:34 AM, Evan <eva...@gmail.com> wrote: >> >>> Use ports! >>> >>> Support for "web platform" things will expand as quickly is as >>> manageable with all the other things that need to happen. >>> >> >> https://groups.google.com/d/msg/elm-discuss/oQz5_HvsdcQ/BFN_rLIDAgAJ >> >> Evan, >> >> Here is what I see: >> >> Fred attempted to expand the support for the "web platform". >> He did all the work and produced a package that follows, to the best of >> his abilities, the latest guidelines. >> He even went as far as to gift this package to elm-lang.org. >> He opened an issue and there are a number of people who saw that issue >> and expressed interest in having this solved (even if they did it only by >> giving the issue a thumbs-up) . >> >> There was NO official feedback on that issue in the past 7 days since it >> was published. >> No comment, no label, no feedback either way. >> And now you say "Use ports!" like that doesn't even exist. >> >> I realize that there are other important things that need to happen but >> maybe you should take some time and create some Community Guidelines that >> would include a detailed checklist for contributing. >> >> Make it easier for people like Fred who are actively trying to help to >> actually help. >> Make it easier for people who see people like Fred to become like Fred >> (active contributors). >> >> I realize that there are technical concerns and maybe legal concerns but >> all these can be solved by adopting a clear and solid contribution process. >> >> You said last year: >> On Tue, Jan 6, 2015 at 4:16 PM, Evan Czaplicki <eva...@gmail.com> wrote: >> >>> I tend to be more conservative and risk averse on technical stuff, so I >>> tend to be a control freak. >>> >> >> https://groups.google.com/d/msg/elm-discuss/np3BO9X5rEc/jG3AIiU2zYEJ >> >> That's perfectly fine and one of the reasons Elm evolves so nicely BUT it >> is also one of the reasons Elm develops way slower than it needs to. >> >> Jeff pointed last year to ZeroMQ community as a source of inspiration. I >> would LOVE for Elm community to follow a similar contract. >> >> On a side note, Pieter Hinjens recently distilled all his previous work >> on community building into a free book. Here is the chapter on the C4 >> ( Collective Code Construction Contract ) >> <https://hintjens.gitbooks.io/social-architecture/content/chapter4.html> >> it documents the reasons for why things are the way they are. >> >> So, in closing, help us help you make Elm even greater than it already >> is. :) >> >> > -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Elm Discuss" group. To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to elm-discuss+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.
