3 ms·
In must be noted that it should parse as (avoid (success at all costs)), not (avoid success)(at all costs). That is, losing integrity for the sake of success i
by nine_k 3mo ago
In must be noted that it should parse as (avoid (success at all costs)), not (avoid success)(at all costs).
That is, losing integrity for the sake of success is what's to be avoided, not success itself.
- throwaway201606 3mo agoI appreciate this clarrification comment: had originally read this as option B and was wondering "why would they say this?"
- sodapopcan 3mo agoI always read it as option b as well. I figured it meant they wanted to avoid the "too many cooks" problems that plagues all popular languages, and especially avoid extreme pressure from powerful "clients" to make specific changes. IE, was about control. But ya, now that I see nine_k's comment, option makes a lot of sense.
- projektfu 3mo agoMe too, but I think it means to avoid being constrained by success, like Python 2. Elm took this a little to far.
- tombert 3mo agoI always took it as "make the 'best' decision [1] without regard for whether or not it's going to be popular or make the language more business-friendly". [1] however you choose to define "best"