> If Circle does provide a number of desirable features and its compiler can be built by a single person, then why shouldn't the committee do the same? Well, t

> If Circle does provide a number of desirable features and its compiler can be built by a single person, then why shouldn't the committee do the same? Well, there are downsides to taking Circle's approach which I think are worthwhile to mention. Languages are preferable to everyone creating their own custom DSL. They provide a single target that everyone is able to learn, it allows one to work in a much larger body of work without friction. When I pull down a library or codebase, I want to be able to immediately hit the ground running instead of having to understand every aspect of how the developers have tweaked the language to suit their preferences, and how each of these tweaks interact with each other. You probably shouldn't rely on people making these choices themselves, because you don't want everyone being a language designer -- it invites a combinatorial explosion with conflicting features that don't play nicely with each other. But mostly, it's about maximizing one's ability to pull down and work in foreign codebases without having to learn a new dialect of a language.