Michal, I generally agree with your comments. And I think Henry will as well. We have a lot to learn as we slowly enter a more collaborative way of designing/implementing.
Let's see if we can use this as a learning experience. My first comment is that the change is in a beta release and all discussion is welcome and will be considered. None of us should rush to judgement. /Eric On Tue, Sep 14, 2021 at 12:32 PM Michal Wallace <[email protected]> wrote: > I don't like this law. :) > > It's not a problem that I have to build a broad consensus before making a > change to the language, > but (respectfully) it's kind of a problem that *you* don't. > > I mean, if any of us wanted to put in the effort, we could fork J and make > our own versions that work however we want. > Back when J went open source, Eric pretty much explicitly asked us not to > do this. > > Honestly, I could not be happier that you took it upon yourself to > implement {{ .. }} > and I'm sure whatever you have planned for name:: is going to be cool and > useful, too. > > I guess my problem is that these changes seem to be appearing out of the > blue > *without* any formal process from the community. > > There should be a real system in place by which these decisions get made. > > If you look at python or java, they have the idea of enhancement proposals > that go through a lengthy discussion > and yes, consensus-building process,with people submitting comments and > potential implementations, etc. > > And then there's some formal decision making process at the end. > > For python, used to be the case that Guido van Rossum ("Benevolent Dictator > for Life") had the > final say, and he almost blew up the python community when he made the > final decision on > assignment-as-an-expression, and last I heard had kind of at least > temporarily gone into "exile"... (??) > > If you or Eric are to be the final decision maker, that's a completely fine > way of doing things, > but there should still be a process. > > Like... A written out, formal process, with an explicit statement of how > the ideation, consensus building, > and decision making processes are meant to happen... And above all, these > must all be something > more than "whoever-it-is-just-uses-their-best-judgement". > > It is obvious that you have good judgement. That's not the question... > This is about the day in the future when the J community is 10 or 100 or > 1000 > times bigger than it is today. > > I know nobody thinks that is going to ever happen, but sometimes that's how > the internet works. > > When I learned python, python was pretty much exactly where J is now: a > wacky fringe language > that only a tiny group of people used: > > http://www.paulgraham.com/pypar.html (Paul Graham on why you should hire > python programmers in 2004 > even though basically 0 companies in the world use python. Note that he > also mentions J in the same category.) > > Anyway, sorry if I'm ranting here. > > This is the kind of problem that every open source project faces as they > start to approach > the bend in the hockey stick of growth. > > I don't know how far in the future that bend is, or if it'll ever happen, > but we should think through the > possibility and try to make our development process robust enough to handle > whatever growth comes our way. > > > On Tue, Sep 14, 2021 at 11:44 AM Henry Rich <[email protected]> wrote: > > > Possession is nine points of the law. :) > > > > I have big plans for name:: . More important, I am opposed to > > assignment in tacits because they destroy the functional-programming > > purity of the tacit language. You will need to build a broad consensus > > before making such a change. > > > > Henry Rich > > > > > > > > On 9/14/2021 10:39 AM, Michal Wallace wrote: > > > what's up with this new `name::` syntax? > > > > > > I have no problem with the concept, but I have a different suggestion > for > > > what `name::` should mean: a verb that assigns the variable with that > > name. > > > > > > That seems like a much more commonly wished-for thing (assignment in > > > trains) : > > > > > > > > > https://code.jsoftware.com/wiki/System/Interpreter/Requests#Support_assignment_in_tacit_expressions > > > > > > Could you use `name:.` instead for self-effacing names? It's even got a > > > mnemonic... The big colon followed by the diminutive period could > > indicate > > > the change in status.... :) > > > ---------------------------------------------------------------------- > > > For information about J forums see http://www.jsoftware.com/forums.htm > > > > > > -- > > This email has been checked for viruses by AVG. > > https://www.avg.com > > > > ---------------------------------------------------------------------- > > For information about J forums see http://www.jsoftware.com/forums.htm > > > ---------------------------------------------------------------------- > For information about J forums see http://www.jsoftware.com/forums.htm > ---------------------------------------------------------------------- For information about J forums see http://www.jsoftware.com/forums.htm
