Generality creep

[Nicholas Wilson]

On Thursday, 4 April 2019 at 04:25:59 UTC, Andrei Alexandrescu 
wrote:
> On 4/4/19 12:24 AM, Andrei Alexandrescu wrote:
>> On 4/3/19 11:09 PM, Nicholas Wilson wrote:
>>> I don't think we are going to be able to do this without 
>>> iterating on the design and closing holes and nuisances that 
>>> we discover. I'm not saying that it is a bad idea to design 
>>> up front as much as we can, but we shouldn't wast time 
>>> getting hung up on design when implementation can give gains 
>>> to users and guidance to the design.
>> 
>> I don't think this works for programming language design. In 
>> fact I'm positive it doesn't. It's the way we've done things 
>> so far.
>
> Well I'm exaggerating. I mean to say every time we did it that 
> way,

Examples please?

> the result hasn't been good.

e.g. DIP1000 was bad, not because it was iterated upon to fix the 
holes in it, but because the changes were not communicated 
properly and not documented. I suggest we don't make those same 
mistakes again.