4 ms·
Perhaps, but if you take the "single person with strong control" path then I think you tend to get a different set of failure cases instead. For a small languag
by pm215 3y ago
Perhaps, but if you take the "single person with strong control" path then I think you tend to get a different set of failure cases instead. For a small language, a benevolent-dictator can (unintentionally, through bad decisions) take the language in a direction that just causes it to dwindle into insignificance. For a large language, they can make mis-steps with big consequences (maybe the Python 2->3 transition counts here?).
Sometimes what an established language needs is mostly "write things down, keep all the implementations moving in the same direction, don't make big changes or break compatibility", and in that situation a committee can be a good approach. I think the C standards committee have overall done a reasonable job within that kind of remit.
- rollcat 3y agoIt's also about what Scheme is and isn't, and what it certainly isn't is another C. A BDFL would attract a certain following, but some people are not interested in following anyone in particular - and Scheme is there for them. I'm 100% certain that if a single Scheme implementation emerged as dominant, and appointed a single BDFL in charge of producing all blessed RnRSs & SRFIs, the remaining Scheme implementations/community would continue to do their own thing, because that's what Scheme is about. (See the general response to R6RS as an example.)
- sanderjd 3y agoI dunno, maybe the python 2 -> 3 transition itself didn't go great, but I think python 3 has been a better foundation for python's wild popularity explosion over the last decade. I think if anything it's (in my opinion) more an example of not pulling the band-aid off quickly enough, rather than an example of why you shouldn't break backwards compatibility.