3 ms·
While I do agree that six month is not quite long, there's another issue: in the RFC PR, most of discussions took place before Mar 27, which is 10 days after wh
by xuejie 10y ago
While I do agree that six month is not quite long, there's another issue: in the RFC PR, most of discussions took place before Mar 27, which is 10 days after when the RFC was submitted. Then there were a few comments on on Apr 28, and nothing really happened until Aug 4, when someone mentioned they were interested in the RFC, and there only has been minor discussions after that compared to the situation before Mar 27.
I might be wrong but judging from this, I felt like we might never reach a conclusion on this topic even in a considerably long enough time, since it did seem to me that the core team is not interested in this feature.
From this point of view, I don't think it matters too much when we debate if six month is long enough, even if we waited longer, I'm not sure if the situation is gonna change when interest in this feature stays low.
- steveklabnik 10y ago> it did seem to me that the core team is not interested in this feature. It was proposed by a core team member, even. Changing a language takes time. There's only so many people and so much work to do: the author of that RFC has also been working really hard on incremental recompilation, for example, which a lot of people have been waiting for. To re-phrase someone from the Reddit, you can't win: if we don't add new features but fix bugs, people claim that you ignore feature work, but if you add tons of new features, people wonder why you're bothering to add new features when there's lots of bugs open. It's tough.