3 ms·
I think it's more about losing control. As soon as the documentation is open, there is a lot more pressure to explain the decisions made in an accurate or accep
by ablob 4y ago
I think it's more about losing control.
As soon as the documentation is open, there is a lot more pressure to explain the decisions made in an accurate or accepted fashion.
Add some good old bike-shedding or contributions that miss the point and a project that was once fun becomes tedious to work for.
- samatman 4y agoIt also adds a lot of drag to iteration to have to go back and rework documentation. On this kind of project, it's more than syntax-deep. Documentation would have a lot of reasoning and justification in it, which can take deep work to keep up to date.
- kazinator 4y agoSutter isn't saying there isn't documentation, but that he's not releasing it.
- threatripper 4y agoDocumenting something for yourself and documentation that is ready for public release are two very different animals.
- gumby 4y agoA lot of decisions made, BTW, have been explained in proposals for the C++ committee that came out of this work.
- summerlight 4y agoYeah, I couldn't agree more. this is exactly what's happening in ISO C++ and Herb should be well aware of its problems since lots of his good proposals failed to proceed many times thanks to WG21 rife with all the bureaucracies and nitpicking. This kind of skunk works needs to be fully driven by a competent individual or small group until it's finally able to demonstrate a good value proposition and build trusts by the project itself.
- ethbr0 4y agoAnd a common cause of getting stuck in local maxima (specifically, in committee/consensus-driven projects) is that each individual decomposed feature doesn't obviously deliver value on its own merits, but the sum of a group of such features can reach a higher local maxima. Aka, why argue about feature A, when the goal and long game is how A+B+C+D works?