4 ms·

So, I'm not saying they were wrong or right, but this is interesting to see what happens when the "consensus" is a major corporation. I'll make a prediction no

So, I'm not saying they were wrong or right, but this is interesting to see what happens when the "consensus" is a major corporation. I'll make a prediction now. We'll be seeing things like this happening in the Microsoft code base in a few years. I'm a huge fan of Microsoft and their open source effort, but I'm not above believing that corporate interests win in the end. EDIT: Thanks for the downvotes, care to explain where I'm wrong? I'm sharing something called an opinion.

aaron-lebo 10y ago
It's kind of funny to be in a world where Microsoft gets the benefit of the doubt (the 90s are rolling over in their graves). I'm a huge fan of Microsoft and their open source effort, but I'm not above believing that corporate interests win in the end. You can save yourself some suspense: yes corporate interests win. That's a result of a business model where corporations serve faceless shareholders. You are either making money or you aren't. The corporation is a soulless entity that workers and money pass through. This seems like pretty common human behavior, no? On a less cynical note, this kind of behavior is why a language designed by a bunch of corporations (JS) seems less and less interesting. Good luck practically influencing development if you aren't embedded in an organization already.
- zoeysaurusrex 10y ago
  Oh yeah, I'd count project.json in dotnet core to be an example of that already. The community was told it would be pulled eventually with no real involvement from the community. EDIT: Or just robo-downvote me, lol instead of presenting a counterpoint.
  - hvidgaard 10y ago
    It was not like they didn't have a reason. The project.json was completely incompatible with the rest of their build chain, and changing it would be a colossal undertaking, that would mean they had to support two different build systems to remain backwards compatible. I'm not in favor of the msbuild system at all, it's not good. But it works, it's reasonable once you learn it (like most other build systems), and since they're footing the bill and have to keep the entire system in a coherent state, they decided what they did. The only reason we saw it, was that they've opened up their development process a lot earlier than they used to do.
    - zoeysaurusrex 10y ago
      Totally agree, I think they realized what they did once they dove into the deep end. I won't criticize them pulling that feature back, it was just the way they went about. I can't be too hard on them, I'm sure they've learned a ton about maintaining source publicly since then.
    - cptskippy 10y ago
      Serious question, is there a build chain out there that anyone is really happy with?
      - ianamartin 10y ago
        Serious answer: No.
  - zgramana 10y ago
    project.json was pulled due to very strong negative feedback from the community. Not sure how you missed that, but it's actually an example of Microsoft changing course due to significant community involvement.
    - zoeysaurusrex 10y ago
      I'm willing to accept that I'm wrong, but can you provide the discussions around that? I did somehow miss it. The only discussions I saw were hand wringing from people about not being involved enough, and these weren't small threads. Thank you for correcting me.
detaro 10y ago
> when the "consensus" is a major corporation What do you mean by that? If consensus is required any member can veto a proposal, not just those belonging to the major corporations?
- deleted 10y ago
  [deleted]
- zoeysaurusrex 10y ago
  I probably should clarify. I mean when consensus is a group that is making decisions with a potential financial impact to their employer. Google cancelled a proposal because reasons, which will be found out in January apparently.
_wmd 10y ago
FTA: > One of the important priorities in TC39 is to achieve consensus - which means that any employee of any member company can always block any proposal. It's far far better for anyone to be able to block, than to arrive at a spec that "not everyone" is willing to implement - this is, by a large large margin, the lesser evil, I assure you.
- zoeysaurusrex 10y ago
  Maybe I just haven't been part of software development in a large enough company, but I don't think a vote of all-or-none is the best idea. This of course is just my opinion and it is based on ZERO proof. I feel like it should at least be majority rules. My concern would be if Google would oppose something desperately needed by the community because the feature they are blocking for will benefit them in some way financially. I'm sure it's a hard case to make, but I am curious nonetheless.
  - couchand 10y ago
    Consider your hypothetical: a browser vendor doesn't want to implement some feature. Because of your proposed process change, the feature gets rammed through into the standard over that browser vendor's objections. They probably won't implement it (their objections remain, despite the political process). The standard is now a "standard", and we're right back to the browser wars again.
Arnt 10y ago
Your opinion is wrong, because it's off-context. Google, in this context, is the developer of one of the main implementations. It is also many other things, which do not matter. You might equally well say "what happens when the consensys is a six-letter word". You're being downvoted for dragging in irrelevant and inflammatory rubbish. I don't know, but I wouldn't be surprised if the C++ committee has a similar consensus goal, possibly informal, and that gcc has an effective veto. It's a major implementation. Is that bad? No?

aaron-lebo 10y ago

It's kind of funny to be in a world where Microsoft gets the benefit of the doubt (the 90s are rolling over in their graves). I'm a huge fan of Microsoft and their open source effort, but I'm not above believing that corporate interests win in the end. You can save yourself some suspense: yes corporate interests win. That's a result of a business model where corporations serve faceless shareholders. You are either making money or you aren't. The corporation is a soulless entity that workers and money pass through. This seems like pretty common human behavior, no? On a less cynical note, this kind of behavior is why a language designed by a bunch of corporations (JS) seems less and less interesting. Good luck practically influencing development if you aren't embedded in an organization already.

zoeysaurusrex 10y ago
Oh yeah, I'd count project.json in dotnet core to be an example of that already. The community was told it would be pulled eventually with no real involvement from the community. EDIT: Or just robo-downvote me, lol instead of presenting a counterpoint.
- hvidgaard 10y ago
  It was not like they didn't have a reason. The project.json was completely incompatible with the rest of their build chain, and changing it would be a colossal undertaking, that would mean they had to support two different build systems to remain backwards compatible. I'm not in favor of the msbuild system at all, it's not good. But it works, it's reasonable once you learn it (like most other build systems), and since they're footing the bill and have to keep the entire system in a coherent state, they decided what they did. The only reason we saw it, was that they've opened up their development process a lot earlier than they used to do.
  - zoeysaurusrex 10y ago
    Totally agree, I think they realized what they did once they dove into the deep end. I won't criticize them pulling that feature back, it was just the way they went about. I can't be too hard on them, I'm sure they've learned a ton about maintaining source publicly since then.
  - cptskippy 10y ago
    Serious question, is there a build chain out there that anyone is really happy with?
    - ianamartin 10y ago
      Serious answer: No.
- zgramana 10y ago
  project.json was pulled due to very strong negative feedback from the community. Not sure how you missed that, but it's actually an example of Microsoft changing course due to significant community involvement.
  - zoeysaurusrex 10y ago
    I'm willing to accept that I'm wrong, but can you provide the discussions around that? I did somehow miss it. The only discussions I saw were hand wringing from people about not being involved enough, and these weren't small threads. Thank you for correcting me.

detaro 10y ago

> when the "consensus" is a major corporation What do you mean by that? If consensus is required any member can veto a proposal, not just those belonging to the major corporations?

deleted 10y ago
[deleted]
zoeysaurusrex 10y ago
I probably should clarify. I mean when consensus is a group that is making decisions with a potential financial impact to their employer. Google cancelled a proposal because reasons, which will be found out in January apparently.

_wmd 10y ago

FTA: > One of the important priorities in TC39 is to achieve consensus - which means that any employee of any member company can always block any proposal. It's far far better for anyone to be able to block, than to arrive at a spec that "not everyone" is willing to implement - this is, by a large large margin, the lesser evil, I assure you.

zoeysaurusrex 10y ago
Maybe I just haven't been part of software development in a large enough company, but I don't think a vote of all-or-none is the best idea. This of course is just my opinion and it is based on ZERO proof. I feel like it should at least be majority rules. My concern would be if Google would oppose something desperately needed by the community because the feature they are blocking for will benefit them in some way financially. I'm sure it's a hard case to make, but I am curious nonetheless.
- couchand 10y ago
  Consider your hypothetical: a browser vendor doesn't want to implement some feature. Because of your proposed process change, the feature gets rammed through into the standard over that browser vendor's objections. They probably won't implement it (their objections remain, despite the political process). The standard is now a "standard", and we're right back to the browser wars again.

Arnt 10y ago

Your opinion is wrong, because it's off-context. Google, in this context, is the developer of one of the main implementations. It is also many other things, which do not matter. You might equally well say "what happens when the consensys is a six-letter word". You're being downvoted for dragging in irrelevant and inflammatory rubbish. I don't know, but I wouldn't be surprised if the C++ committee has a similar consensus goal, possibly informal, and that gcc has an effective veto. It's a major implementation. Is that bad? No?