Re: Proposal: Proposals are the wrong approach [prose and long]

[Andrew Starks <andrew.starks@...>]

On Saturday, May 3, 2014, Coroutines <coroutines@gmail.com> wrote:
> On Sat, May 3, 2014 at 10:31 AM, Andrew Starks <andrew.starks@trms.com> wrote:
>
> IMO, more than half this list is made up of extremely biased and
> discouraging 'regulars', who push down any idea that threatens their
> view of what Lua should be -- without reading the full proposal and
> considering its viability within the stated constraints and use cases.
>  I frequently see things buried under a shitstorm of opinions, not
> facts -- not data.  I have been accused many times of making proposals
> that aren't backed by usage data or patches, but while I've asked for
> constructive criticism unfairly I often get blind dislike of added
> syntax sugar, or dislike of ideas that can be attributed to other
> languages.  As if an idea can be bad simply because it is well known
> from Python or Ruby or Perl.  I view most of you as destructive and
> stagnatory.

This really says it all, right here.  As long as you don't see people as smart, but with a different perspective you are doomed. 

 

> And then there are some who say this is what you must expect.  This is
> the type of people you have to win over.  PUC Rio only listens to what
> works its way through the negativity of people fighting for minimal
> zealotry.  I know most of you aren't running Lua on toasters or
> working with C runtimes from the 80s -- you're full of it.
>
> I've seen this done better, but it won't change here.
>
> I'm not a happy person on Saturdays.

This makes me so sad. At the risk of being pulled into this, I'll submit this:

If I'm running thousands of Lua threads in a datacenter application, memory and processing "space" starts to look a lot like that of a "toaster." Size, speed and efficiency always matter everywhere sometimes. 

-Andrew