[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next]
- Subject: Re: Ruby philosophy vs Lua philosophy
- From: Miles Bader <miles@...>
- Date: Thu, 28 Feb 2013 10:55:34 +0900
Andrew Starks <email@example.com> writes:
> But consider Linux, and BSD and Windows, which you use as examples.
> Each one had borderline-psychopathic control freaks at the helm.
> Not what I would call "asshole-free" environments.
That simply isn't true about Linux (or, I'd wager, about the
non-openbsd BSDs, despite the, er, surfeit of strong personalities on
the BSD core teams; however my experience there is much older).
None of those projects' leadership styles really mesh with the Lua
community style of course, but let's not be needlessly inflammatory.
But anyway, it seems that Aaron's point was not about leadership
styles, but that these projects advanced in a very incremental manner,
not with pie-in-the-sky grand goals. This is particularly true of
linux, which really is a _community_, with a ton of people of all
backgrounds and styles working on whatever is important to them, and
occasionally trying to get it merged.
There may not be any suitable "leader" to guide a Lua community (the
official Lua team probably don't want the job, and I suspect anybody
who volunteers is probably the last person you'd want!), but it would
seem very doable to have a system roughly similar to the linux dev
model with a more consensus-based model for handling merge decisions,
etc. The GCC or Boost projects might be examples of something like
永日の 澄んだ紺から 永遠へ