On Thu, 24 Oct 2002, Rodent of Unusual Size wrote:
> Scott Sanders wrote: > > > > The only thing I actually worry about is getting too many j-c'ers > > over here, and not having an equivalent viewpoint from the non-java > > side. If the c/perl/python/yal side is not represented here, we > > may have the same amount of 'brokeness' that exists in j-c today > > in some people's minds. > > [perl i think is a non-starter here because of cpan. :-)] Agreed. > greg is a rabid python person; i'm not a java person, ... > as mentioned, i intend to keep the pmc small, diverse, and > [relatively] objective until it's clear that it won't be > overwhelmed as you fear. This does assume that j-c people are only rabid about java. I'm pretty sure they're rabid in general [yes! more christmas cards for me]. I know Andrew Oliver is rabid about D, I have worrying loves for perl, rebol, ruby[someday], pike and plan rabidity on python and C# if I ever got near enough to kick. Jakarta's charter limits us to Java though, so we come across as rabid Java-ites. [Plus the "When in Java use only Java" philosophy of Java]. > so, fair warning: i'm going to scrutinise any suggestion by j-c > people according to 'would this make life harder for any other > language/environment?' i think it's quite possible that some > j-c people won't even be aware that some things are well-suited > to java but poorly-suited to other language. (directory hierarchy, > for instance, off the top of my head.) so things that are > applicable across the board: good. things that are neutral else > where but good for java: not ideal, but okey. things that benefit > java but cause problems for other languages: bad. > > but as far as that goes, i'll similarly examine suggestions from > other languages and have to rely on the opinion of the java people > here about whether it would make things more difficult for them. > 'that's not the way j-c does things' will never be a valid reason > by itself, though. Seems pretty fair. We need to say: That's not how J-C does things because we found this to be a big pain etc. > for the life of me i can't think of anything that would fall into > this sort of category, technically, so the alternate light > under which i'll be examining things would be along the lines > of 'is this within the a-c scope and does it further its purposes?' > with caution that things might be proposed 'because that's the > way we liked in in <elsewhere>' and not because of any implicit > merit. The Sun issue of Java licencing could. Though C# will have more of an issue there. Hen
