haxe-evolution

Also, here is an official repo where you can look at proposed and accepted changes: https://github.com/HaxeFoundation/haxe-evolution

I feel like you are missing the point here. Project maintainers can behave like absolute arbitors if they want to. Many projects successfully work by this mechanism. The issue as stake here isn't how they decided on the proposal but rather that the way that they decided on the proposal is different to the processes that they specified. They are soliciting contributions by promising an open process ( see https://github.com/HaxeFoundation/haxe-evolution#voting-proc... ) but disregarding those processes when they feel like it. Ironically, the discussion we are having here is much closer to the level of engagement that should have happened there. As a sidenote, I'm just curious, what do you personally think of the proposal? Would you like to have the concise object literal notation in Haxe?

>the onus should be on the proposer I'll bite: what should @Lerc have done differently in his proposal (https://github.com/HaxeFoundation/haxe-evolution/pull/51)?

>perhaps your feature request wasn’t deemed to be thought out enough? Why the automatic defense of the Haxe team? Frankly, small communities like this sometimes come across as cult-like in their response to criticism, and it isn't a good look. Here's the proposal in question: https://github.com/HaxeFoundation/haxe-evolution/pull/51 Here's the process which wasn't followed: https://github.com/HaxeFoundation/haxe-evolution. Very little discussion, no public vote, even though the proposer put in the effort and clearly wanted to engage. When someone puts in the effort to make a proposal like this, this bait and switch is not a way to keep them around, and insulting them in HN comments isn't any better.

Similar experience here. I've proposed a few changes to the language and none have been accepted. Rejecting convenience features with no downside like concise object literals is unfortunate. It literally took over four years to finally get arrow functions into Haxe, which had overwhelming community support. Change proposals are subjective, so people can have different opinions on whether a change should be accepted or whether it was well-formulated enough. What bugs me though is that the Haxe team has a documented process for considering and voting on these proposals, which they don't follow. If Nicolas doesn't like a feature, it's essentially vetoed. If he changes his mind later, it'll be implemented without any further discussion. Most discussion happens in an internal Slack channel so there's no transparency. It's essentially a BDFL ma

Haxe has a nice site for discussing upcoming features: https://github.com/HaxeFoundation/haxe-evolution The pr page has the list of ongoing discussions: https://github.com/HaxeFoundation/haxe-evolution/pulls The issues page is a sort of staging ground for complex gripes that don't have straightforward solutions yet. It's a great community, I've been part of it for years and recently joined the compiler team.