There's _no_ guaranteed right answer for language evolution. The meritocracy can get it wrong, and one can make mistakes in creating the selection criterion for what 'merit' implies (such as listening solely to loudmouths - though in practice some of the folks complaining have been playing around with other languages, prototypes, and/or spinoff projects, which should all count as suitable technical merit).
However, even if your meritocracy isn't working quite as effectively as it could, it'll beat democracy hands down. On Sep 6, 5:11 pm, Fabrizio Giudici <fabrizio.giud...@tidalwave.it> wrote: > Reinier Zwitserloot wrote: > > Hence, I don't really care what the wider java community > > thinks or wants. I care about what the vocal minority wants. > > > NB: Casper Bang makes a pretty good case for #2 as well (meritocracy > > beats democracy in matters of language design). Couldn't agree more, > > more Casper. > > Good points, but I still see troubles: > > 1. You're assuming that the "vocal" people are the smartest guys (= > winners in a meritocratic context). I doubt that the two groups are the > same, even though it's clear that some of the vocal people are smart. > 2. Even pretending the previous point is a non issue, you're assuming > that what the smartest people decide is good for the masses. This is not > always true. > > The second point is very complex to explain, so I'm trying with an > example. One of the recurring criticism about why Java is too > conservative, or why more modern APIs haven't been developed, is the > constraint about binary retro-compatibility. Managing a breakage in > retro-compatibility is a matter of being good in software development > practices, basically refactoring and testing. It sounds quite obvious to > me that the smartest guys are pretty good in those practices, so it they > called for breaking retro-compatibility, it wouldn't be absurd *in their > perspective*. Unfortunately, 95% of the world doesn't work with best > practices, doesn't test (enough) and fears refactoring like hell. Break > retro-compatibility and you'll have tons of people lag with older Java > versions for years, and when they are forced to switch the up-to-date > Java will be so different from what they're working on that they will > have equal chances to move to something else (not counting those that > will move sooner, angry for the break). Voilà, in a few years this would > turn a mass-language into an elite language. > > -- > Fabrizio Giudici - Java Architect, Project Manager > Tidalwave s.a.s. - "We make Java work. Everywhere." > weblogs.java.net/blog/fabriziogiudici -www.tidalwave.it/blog > fabrizio.giud...@tidalwave.it - mobile: +39 348.150.6941 --~--~---------~--~----~------------~-------~--~----~ You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "The Java Posse" group. To post to this group, send email to javaposse@googlegroups.com To unsubscribe from this group, send email to javaposse+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/javaposse?hl=en -~----------~----~----~----~------~----~------~--~---
