> What would be the following attitude? We only add new features when we think > nim.lang is really bug-free and the documentation is rated "premium" by all > users.
People bring this up a lot so I'll say my own opinion. I don't remember any feature added since 1.0 that wasn't added because an existing feature is broken or can be improved, essentially a bugfix. An easy example would be "strict funcs" or `effectsOf` but even things like ARC/ORC apply. Maybe I'm not seeing it but I really don't think people are being "distracted" by the prospect of adding new features. Rather people are not interested in cleaning up after old features. I think people don't want new features they are expecting baggage along with them like old features have, while this does not have to be the case, in fact they can result in a net loss of baggage. However redoing things is not always a good idea. The real roadblock is probably this decision between going all in on a new feature or having faith that the old feature makes sense but just needs some work. The compiler being unreadable sometimes makes this hard to figure out but I think people would hesitate to make a decision regardless. But I might be wrong. If I am, it would be crazy seeing the results of a compiler refactor.
