Where is a better place to have these discussions?
-
-
-
There isn't one. RFCs today should not be evaluated based on interactions with features that are not on any roadmap.
- 5 more replies
New conversation -
-
-
Similar happening in JS with both OOP and FP developers fighting each for their popular features which *obviously* should be added to JavaScript.
-
I have no problem with FP concepts being added to Rust. But we should not evaluate RFCs today based on the assumption that we will eventually be Haskell
- 2 more replies
New conversation -
-
-
this is honestly wild to hear coming from you
-
Regardless of my feelings on any of those features, I think most can agree that RFCs today should not be evaluated based on features that aren't on any roadmaps.
End of conversation
New conversation -
-
-
Like I want those things but like that's outside the scope of an RFC. Do that later whenever that point in time comes
-
Yeah I worded it poorly due to character limits. My point was that we should not be evaluating RFCs today on the assumption that haskell things that are not on any roadmap will eventually be added
- 1 more reply
New conversation -
-
-
That was the discourse some people had when Swift was open-sourced. They gave up after they realized they could just use Haskell instead.
Thanks. Twitter will use this to make your timeline better. UndoUndo
-
-
-
I think there's something to be said about being cognizant of future directions (so as to not cut them out entirely before we even come up with something reasonable), but yeah, at some point, people are obviously worrying too much about things that are not _clearly_ future work.
Thanks. Twitter will use this to make your timeline better. UndoUndo
-
Loading seems to be taking a while.
Twitter may be over capacity or experiencing a momentary hiccup. Try again or visit Twitter Status for more information.