undefined

points

[-]

> design-by-committee

I don't think it is about having committee, but rather having a spec. And I mean spec, not necessarily ISO standard. There should be a description of how specific features work, what is expected behavior, what is unexpected and should be treated as bug, and what is rationale behind specific decision.

Coincidentally people here hate specs as well, and that explains some things.

I know there is some work on Rust spec, but it doesn't seem to progress much.

by bitwalker15 hours ago|

parent|

[-]

AIUI, that is what the MIR formalization work is about, and it seems to be moving along fine. My impression is that covers essentially all the interesting parts of Rust worth specifying formally.

by metaltyphoon1 days ago|

prev|

[-]

> I know people here hate design-by-committee, but historically it's led to some very cohesive languages.

C++ is not cohesive at all

by LiamPowell1 days ago|

parent|

[-]

I didn't say this applies to every committee, but I do think the opposite applies to almost every "try it and see" language.

Examples of cohesive languages designed by committees would be Ada and Haskell.

by pjmlp1 days ago|

parent|

[-]

Haskell is anything but cohesive, depending on which feature flags are enabled on GHC, or any other compiler.

by scrubs1 days ago|

prev|

[-]

Well ok ... experiment but maybe unlike c++ we could have added N keywords removed M keywords for arguably net-simpler language.

Geez I'd hate to be in rust dev shoes if I can't remove something later when I have a better better min/max. I guess this could be done off main, stable.

by Starlevel0041 days ago|

prev|

[-]

Rust is also design-by-committee.

by satvikpendem1 days ago|

prev|

[-]

Yes, however how many of them are used in production to some level of scale (not even to the scale of Rust)? Stroustrup's quote and all that.

Rust's development process is also design by committee, interestingly enough.

by LiamPowell1 days ago|

parent|

[-]

> Rust's development process is also design by committee, interestingly enough.

Sure, but it's still quite informal and they just add things as they go instead of writing a complete standard and figuring out how everything interacts before anything is added to the language. Design-by-committee was probably not the best term to use.