Stefan Huchler <
address@hidden> schrieb am Di., 25. Okt. 2016 um 19:06 Uhr:
Philipp Stephani <address@hidden> writes:
> That might be the intention, but I expect the outcome will be that
> interest in alternative paradigms gets lost (unless such alternative
> paradigms would also be merged and be available in parallel).
In hope to bring the discussion further without knowing to much about
the topic, you talked about "in your experiment" so do you have some
sort of proof-of-concept code working with emacs?
Yes, I'd be happy to upload it to my Github repo or to a new branch in the Savannah repo if there's interest.
Are you willing to invest much time in implementing your solution?
I think this is important, so I'd be willing to spend some significant amount of time on it. If it turns out to be a huge time sink, we'd still have the existing concurrency branch, so we wouldn't be worse off than we are now.
It seems
to be similar to the commercial world, where people say "put your money
where your mouth is", just in this case "put your code where your mouth
is".
That's a good principle.
I think people would be more convinced if there is some commitment,
cause else you can formulate the nicest thing and nothing will happen.
I dont want to attack you but maybe help you to "sell" your idea better.
I don't see it as an attack. I'm happy to experiment with the various options and participate in concrete design discussions.
But maybe I get the situation wrong, just looks for me like thats the
major motivation why people now push for that mostly done solution
instead of pie in the sky?
My branch can run all examples from the Go tutorial, so I wouldn't call it "pie in the sky". There are obviously open questions (such as Windows support), but I think it's a good start for a discussion.