Idea how to implement VT/VO compatibility in JVM

[Stéphane Épardaud]

On 01/22/2015 05:32 PM, Brian Goetz wrote:
> And this is the essential tension; a solution that retains 
> compatibility (not necessarily just with existing code, but people's 
> existing expectations of how it works) is necessarily going to result 
> in a "worse" language going forward.  There's no magic solution here 
> (though there are bad solutions), the art is putting the pain where it 
> is felt least.

Which is exactly what we're discussing.

> Anyone who thinks they have "the" answer to this problem obviously 
> doesn't understand the problem.  So for those trying to contribute: it 
> would be more helpful if, rather than coming at it from an "I have the 
> answer" perspective, try something more like "I might have a small 
> piece of an answer."  Being in such a mental place is far more likely 
> to result in real contribution!

I could pretend this is not meant to be relevant to the discussion we 
had today, but then that'd be a really unfortunate coincidence. So on 
the (reasonable) assumption that you are talking about my proposal I 
think you have real issues with how you read people's proposals. I 
certainly haven't approached this by belittling what you guys came up 
with, and haven't claimed that my solution is better and easier. What I 
have done is expose some issues with your decisions and prototype and 
proposed some tweaks and then asked for feedback on my proposal, which 
people have done here and we've advanced the discussion quite a lot WRT 
the good/bad of it. Frankly if your contribution to people just trying 
to help is this kind of attitude it's no wonder we got further in the 
discussion while you were not involved. I just don't get it, it's almost 
as if you only want feedback on your proposal as long as it validates it 
and does not question it or offer alternatives or raise issues with it.

I hope I'm just wrong and you were talking about some other person or 
something that happened to you today IRL and it's just bad luck that it 
happened to be directed at people trying to help and you looking like 
you're patronising us. Except I've already seen such behaviour from you 
on this list in the little time I've spent here, which does not lead me 
to assume I'm wrong. I don't understand your frequent attacks, 
especially in an open-source context. Hell, if I was telling 
contributors in the projects I work on how unhelpful they were in such 
passive-aggressive terms I don't think we'd have anyone helping us any 
more. I think the issue with "mental state" is not where you think it is.

Sincerely.