Unfortunately with no unified point for reviewing previous discussion on
these suggestions, people never come to understand why some of them are bad

The mailing list most certainly (obviously, I'd say) doesn't facilitate

On Monday, September 16, 2013 3:56:34 PM UTC+8, Jan Mercl wrote:

On Fri, Sep 13, 2013 at 3:55 PM, u <fresh.g...@gmail.com <javascript:>>
What are your thoughts? Would this be worth pursuing?
IMHO the majority of changes ever proposed on this list are
unfortunately rooted in not understanding why the Go language is what
it is and/or what the implementation and run time consequences are.
Some of the proposals include things Go intentionally avoided, so I'd
consider them, if adopted, harmful.

I suggest to start this process, if at all, as a 3rd party thing, in
analogy to most Go packages. If there would be enough traction in it,
then adopting it in the future as "official" is not a big problem, I
guess. Proposals were adopted without using much formalized processing
which seems to prove that the mechanism is not really required, at
least not in all cases.


PS: Perhaps take a look at the gonum list. Several very bright people
there and yet the process is slow and IMO not having desired/expected
results after months. And that's about one package or one package
collection covering just one area. What I'm trying to point out is
that cooperative design decisions tend to be costly. Usually more than
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "golang-nuts" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to golang-nuts+unsubscribe@googlegroups.com.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out.

Search Discussions

Discussion Posts


Follow ups

Related Discussions

Discussion Navigation
viewthread | post
posts ‹ prev | 14 of 18 | next ›
Discussion Overview
groupgolang-nuts @
postedSep 15, '13 at 11:53p
activeSep 17, '13 at 1:12a



site design / logo © 2021 Grokbase