4 ms·
Calling them mistakes is actively ignoring that there are design constraints and decisions that shape what the language looks and acts like. And that's without
by estebank 2y ago
Calling them mistakes is actively ignoring that there are design constraints and decisions that shape what the language looks and acts like. And that's without getting into "there are only so many hours in a day, a limited amount of people, so not everything is getting done at the same speed, if at all".
It's the first time I hear your second point about intrinsics, for example, and it seems like something that could be done relatively straightforwardly, but introducing "inconsistency" for the benefit of skipping a single unsafe block sounds like the kind of RFC thread I wouldn't want to be a part of.
- anonymoushn 2y agoI don't really think the ownership-related concerns around thread-local storage that ruled out stackful coroutines are valid. Stacks and threads are orthogonal in the same way that futures and threads are orthogonal in the existing design for async. This design has caused a proliferation of dozens of fundamentally non-composable libraries addressing barely-different use cases and leaving many use cases unaddressed, likely wasting much more time than it would have taken to get this right. Various prior art has existed for decades. I accept that languages that are designed collaboratively by huge numbers of people through an RFC process are basically impossible to improve.