3 ms·

It feels like in this instance the reflexive reaction of the developers is what made the passing of the proposal more likely by putting the committee in a psych

It feels like in this instance the reflexive reaction of the developers is what made the passing of the proposal more likely by putting the committee in a psychological position where they're dismissing large amounts of feedback, making them more likely to throw out the proverbial baby. Had there been no discussion about the syntax, maybe the comments saying "we don't need this feature" would have been listened to. It also didn't help that library authors are over-represented in the committee relative to the regular users of the language. Ultimately, I agree that we need to have an authority to make the final decision and it helps if it's informed, but we need to be aware that it's not going to be perfect and it will have blind spots, so perhaps a way for people to veto those decisions should exist.

Ajedi32 8y ago
> It feels like in this instance the reflexive reaction of the developers is what made the passing of the proposal more likely by putting the committee in a psychological position where they're dismissing large amounts of feedback, making them more likely to throw out the proverbial baby. Thank you for putting that into words. That's what I was initially trying to express when I talked about "mudding the water", but the second paragraph sorta took my train of thought in a different direction. I can't help but think that if there weren't so much discussion about the syntax, and consequently so many people willing to throw their support behind any alternative proposals merely because they avoid that particular syntax, some of the more substantial concerns about this proposal might have gotten a bit more consideration due to the higher signal-to-noise ratio.