Language development should be as simple as: study users requests (i.e. developers requests), create work items, estimate and schedule work, deliver new features.
If it's that simple then make a language that isn't dictated by the creators. A democratic language where member developers decide on language features if you will.
I think you'll quickly find that some feature requests are antithetical to other features. To borrow from a title on one of my recent articles Σ(Reasonable Requirements) != Reasonable System.
When the language eventually gets conflicting feature requests, who chooses which features are added and which are not? And how do they choose? And who chooses who chooses?
I'm starting to personally believe that the best languages are those that allow extending the language with syntax that makes those libraries/frameworks feel like part of the native language. Anything else and, like you said, I'm locked in the cult of the language creators; however good that cult may be.
Don't get me wrong - it's not a call for revolution neither for democratic system of controlling languages design. This article is to entertain reader and to present some interesting (at least to me) thoughts. Also I would be glad to see less of a cult in programming.
I have chosen specific cases where decision to implement a feature at some point was no brainer. I don't think we can use argument that those mentioned features are antithetical to the language main design. If that would be the case then why they are being added now? Have they suddenly become not antithetical? Let's ask Rob not to add generics to Go before he makes this huge mistake :)
For further actions, you may consider blocking this person and/or reporting abuse
We're a place where coders share, stay up-to-date and grow their careers.
If it's that simple then make a language that isn't dictated by the creators. A democratic language where member developers decide on language features if you will.
I think you'll quickly find that some feature requests are antithetical to other features. To borrow from a title on one of my recent articles Σ(Reasonable Requirements) != Reasonable System.
When the language eventually gets conflicting feature requests, who chooses which features are added and which are not? And how do they choose? And who chooses who chooses?
I'm starting to personally believe that the best languages are those that allow extending the language with syntax that makes those libraries/frameworks feel like part of the native language. Anything else and, like you said, I'm locked in the cult of the language creators; however good that cult may be.
Don't get me wrong - it's not a call for revolution neither for democratic system of controlling languages design. This article is to entertain reader and to present some interesting (at least to me) thoughts. Also I would be glad to see less of a cult in programming.
I have chosen specific cases where decision to implement a feature at some point was no brainer. I don't think we can use argument that those mentioned features are antithetical to the language main design. If that would be the case then why they are being added now? Have they suddenly become not antithetical? Let's ask Rob not to add generics to Go before he makes this huge mistake :)