I've felt at least some kind of choke point toward the latter stages would be helpful. A time where we can apply some amount of vision and executive control over mostly finished proposals (ensure they work great together, have cohesive semantics, etc).
-
-
There exists a requirement to consider cross-cutting concerns, but the process could encode this more forcefully and ensure sufficient "bake" time is dedicated to uncovering and addressing these issues (even if no one knows of any issues prima facie).
2 replies 0 retweets 6 likes -
Replying to @bterlson
Right, it takes more than considering cross-cutting concerns. A good language design is a carefully considered set of features selected to be useful and powerful in combination. You can’t get there one feature at a time.
2 replies 2 retweets 14 likes -
Replying to @awbjs
How about: 1. Keep yearly releases. 2. Define "waves". Waves are created by committee consensus up-front, have defined vision and scope, and represent a group of mutually beneficial features. 3. Proposals need to be bug fixes, very minor features (lib only), or in a wave.
3 replies 0 retweets 11 likes -
Replying to @bterlson
Yes, something like that. The upfront plan is very important. I suspect that most TC390 delegates haven’t seen the plan that ES6/Harmony operated under https://web.archive.org/web/20100701214135/http://wiki.ecmascript.org:80/doku.php?id=harmony:harmony …
2 replies 1 retweet 4 likes -
I've been so jealous of that plan as I've been working on class features. It'd be great to recuperate something like that. At the same time, I imagine we'll come up with the feature set differently this time, with input from a much broader group.
2 replies 0 retweets 3 likes -
It's important to remember there there were enough flaws in that plan that TC39 quickly accepted the staged proposal. That said, at the time, we expressed worry about cross-cutting concerns, and it's time we revisited that question.
2 replies 0 retweets 1 like -
Replying to @wycats @littledan and
Maybe a group of the champions of class features, pipeline, null coalescing (I think those are the main cross cutting features) can get together to propose some changes to how proposals with that much cross-cuttingness go through the process?
1 reply 0 retweets 1 like -
I definitely like the idea of champions getting together and working out these issues, but I don't know if it needs to be all at once. From a technical perspective, I don't think there's much "cross-cutting-ness" between class features and the expression-related features.
2 replies 0 retweets 0 likes -
At minimum, there's questions around whether sigils like # could be used in pipeline in light of their use as private. But I didn't mean that we should come together to discuss all the features at once, but rather ...
1 reply 0 retweets 0 likes
that we should get together to see what we could do to improve the process for these features.
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.