I see it as a pretty clear sign of dysfunction in the project unfortunately. Being unable to reach an actionable decision to improve on the most disliked part of the language (I’m personally ambivalent, I find that the repetitive error handling quickly fades into the background, but I also really love the ? operator in rust) is a bad sign.
So you think they should have picked a solution that pissed off a large portion of the user base, just so they could say they “solved” it? The entire problem is that they tried, repeatedly, and none of their proposals had wide support.
They did pick a solution that pisses off a large portion of their user base, that’s exactly what choosing to do nothing means when attempting to fix the most complained about issue with your language. Doing nothing is a choice too after all.
How does that logically follow? It seems obvious to me that if every choice is going to piss people off then you simply disregard that as a factor and then make the best choice possible. If that had been their decision process and status quo was the best choice on the merits then that would be perfectly reasonable. That was not, however, the process they described in their blog, instead they remained entirely focused on the one issue that they should have ignored.
Which is completely reasonable. Insanity is trying the same thing over and over and expecting different outcomes.
It’s not like they tried nothing and are all out of ideas; they tried a lot and nothing stuck so far.
I see it as a pretty clear sign of dysfunction in the project unfortunately. Being unable to reach an actionable decision to improve on the most disliked part of the language (I’m personally ambivalent, I find that the repetitive error handling quickly fades into the background, but I also really love the ? operator in rust) is a bad sign.
So you think they should have picked a solution that pissed off a large portion of the user base, just so they could say they “solved” it? The entire problem is that they tried, repeatedly, and none of their proposals had wide support.
They did pick a solution that pisses off a large portion of their user base, that’s exactly what choosing to do nothing means when attempting to fix the most complained about issue with your language. Doing nothing is a choice too after all.
If every possible action is going to piss off a large portion of the user base, doing nothing is the sanest option IMO.
How does that logically follow? It seems obvious to me that if every choice is going to piss people off then you simply disregard that as a factor and then make the best choice possible. If that had been their decision process and status quo was the best choice on the merits then that would be perfectly reasonable. That was not, however, the process they described in their blog, instead they remained entirely focused on the one issue that they should have ignored.