3 ms·

In the last decade, we've had many learning experiences around governance of programming languages. Most of the changing languages that come to mind, I realize

by neilv 3y ago

In the last decade, we've had many learning experiences around governance of programming languages. Most of the changing languages that come to mind, I realize, that they, too, had a big upset or oops related to governance. I now think one of the key things to look for in a programming language is governance -- what they say about how they do it, what they actually do, how that's working out so far, and how you think that will work out in the future.

lifthrasiir 3y ago
While I agree this is an important problem, I don't think there is a satisfactory answer. Programming language evolution is more or less a complexity management, while you also have to balance requirements from various stakeholders. Almost all governance drama came from one group of stakeholders complaining about requirements essential for other group of stakeholders, and you can't always satisfy both. (Rust `async` for example is known to be such case, explaining a functioning but generally unsatisfactory design.) Go is a rare exception where the core team had no reason to honor all stakeholders and enough resource and willpower to do so, and yet some drama did happen.
- neilv 3y ago
  We might be able say that a given assessment of governance will work out well for our needs. But it's a lot easier to identify showstoppers early on. For example, if a language designer and implementor says upfront that they want to run it as Benevolent Dictator For Life, and also that they don't want to see feature PRs from people, because they prefer to work through all the details themself... That's their right, and great information to have upfront. That governance might tentatively work for some adopters, and others will decide it's a showstopper without needing to explore further.
  - lifthrasiir 3y ago
    You are right about early adopters, but once those have been filtered, there will still be multiple stakeholders within the resulting community. Even when we don't consider new users, I can't see how they can be adaquately catered for in general.
  - neilv 3y ago
    > We might be able say Correction: "We might not be able to say".
bsdpufferfish 3y ago
Things have not gotten better. The 1960s-80s model of writing standards was so much better and restricted the politicking to a brief period.
- riwsky 3y ago
  cries in ALGOL-68

by neilv 3y ago

lifthrasiir 3y ago

While I agree this is an important problem, I don't think there is a satisfactory answer. Programming language evolution is more or less a complexity management, while you also have to balance requirements from various stakeholders. Almost all governance drama came from one group of stakeholders complaining about requirements essential for other group of stakeholders, and you can't always satisfy both. (Rust `async` for example is known to be such case, explaining a functioning but generally unsatisfactory design.) Go is a rare exception where the core team had no reason to honor all stakeholders and enough resource and willpower to do so, and yet some drama did happen.

neilv 3y ago
We might be able say that a given assessment of governance will work out well for our needs. But it's a lot easier to identify showstoppers early on. For example, if a language designer and implementor says upfront that they want to run it as Benevolent Dictator For Life, and also that they don't want to see feature PRs from people, because they prefer to work through all the details themself... That's their right, and great information to have upfront. That governance might tentatively work for some adopters, and others will decide it's a showstopper without needing to explore further.
- lifthrasiir 3y ago
  You are right about early adopters, but once those have been filtered, there will still be multiple stakeholders within the resulting community. Even when we don't consider new users, I can't see how they can be adaquately catered for in general.
- neilv 3y ago
  > We might be able say Correction: "We might not be able to say".

bsdpufferfish 3y ago

Things have not gotten better. The 1960s-80s model of writing standards was so much better and restricted the politicking to a brief period.

riwsky 3y ago
cries in ALGOL-68