Clojure and Pull Request Controversy

Jim Balter Jim at
Wed Nov 28 14:48:27 UTC 2018

On Wednesday, 28 November 2018 at 11:29:58 UTC, Chris wrote:
> On Wednesday, 28 November 2018 at 00:12:15 UTC, Walter Bright 
> wrote:
>> The issue of prioritization of reviewing PRs, etc, perennially 
>> comes up and has done so again recently:
>> It seems we're not the only group struggling with this issue. 
>> Food for thought, and some controversy:
> I sincerely hope you don't identify with the OP.
> I'm quoting the comments, because the links under "Copy link" 
> didn't work.
> "[...] Yes, of course everything you said is technically 
> correct. You don't owe anyone anything. But you don't have to 
> be so petulant about it. Saying that users aren't even entitled 
> to an explanation of why they're not entitled to support is 
> childish in the extreme, particularly because your own company 
> and livelihood are heavily dependent upon the work that some of 
> those users gave you for free.
> [...]
> I do appreciate that you're making your position very clear - 
> hopefully this can help projects and companies make 
> better-informed decisions about whether they want to be locked 
> in to a project that operates this way. Just dial it back a 
> bit, eh?"
> -- briangordon
> "Open source may be a gift, but it doesn't come with batteries 
> included, and so there's a cost for adopting such a "gift." If 
> you want people to use your software, closed- or open-source, 
> you do need to make it worth their time and show some basic 
> decency to your users."
> -- tommyettinger
> You cannot say "We need help, we're a small community!" and 
> then when people step up and do help say "Who are you anyway? 
> You're not entitled to anything!"
> And as regards adopting the software, when you read this thread
> you will not even think twice about whether or not to adopt it, 
> you just run away. Ironically enough, it was about the time the 
> post about "more radical ideas" was posted that I was beginning 
> to feel very uneasy with D.
> Yesterday I was innocently thinking if and how LDC+Android 
> could be integrated into Android Studio via CMake etc., but 
> then it occurred to me that even if I / we succeeded in doing 
> so, the D code itself might still break anytime, because of 
> "more radical ideas". Maybe D should be rebranded as 
> "Minefield".

Rich Hickey's piece was addressed to entitled assholes and 
trolls. It's no wonder that a maggot like you responded to it as 
you did.

More information about the Digitalmars-d mailing list