#send in 1.9

On Aug 8, 2007, at 10:55 AM, Phrogz wrote:

My experience with the new RCR system hasn’t been very negative, but
it hasn’t been great.

I agree that the new system hasn’t won me over yet and I think you do
a great job of analyzing the reasons.

I’m not sure what the root cause of these symptoms is. Did the reset
disenchant a bunch of people?

I can’t speak for everyone, but it did for me a little, yes. After
literally years of silent observation I finally got up the courage to
make one. I followed the process as best I knew how: held the
discussion on Ruby Core, etc. My proposal got 14 “In favor” votes
and 4 “Strongly advocate” votes. Sadly, I think the site was already
dead by then and it just didn’t seem to matter.

Did the switch to mailing-list subscription discussions raise the
entry barrier too high?

This does concern me too. I’ll confess that I’m not auto-subscribed
to all the lists as they are made. That felt like it could get
overwhelming fast and I chickened out. (Looking back now though, the
traffic has been fine, so far.)

Like most Prag fans I’ve been dipping into Erlang a little lately.
One thing I noticed about their world was that they have one mailing
list that was just for discussing proposals to change the language.
I thought that was neat idea when I saw it. For some reason it feels
less overwhelming to me.

James Edward G. II

On Aug 8, 2007, at 10:30 AM, Robert D. wrote:

For me this is a discussion beyond lobbying, and I feel it is rich,
and I feel sad that you folks point a finger and cry RCR :slight_smile:

I apologize. I should have been nicer.

You’re right in that there’s nothing really wrong with this
discussion. My personal feeling is that Trans’s solution to most
situations is to change Ruby to fit his world view. I feel like it
should be the other way around most of the time.

His regular change requests have led me to consider them more noise
than signal, though I shouldn’t have taken that out on this thread.
Again, I apologize.

Getting back on topic: I feel as I have already stated that send()
and funcall() are on the right sides of the equation. send() sends
messages to an object and I feel that should be treated as a normal
method call, ignoring the private stuff.

funcall() was selected because Matz sometimes refers to receiverless
method calls as a “function style” syntax. We have at least
module_function() in the language today as another sign of this.

Like David Black, I don’t care for the name and would prefer send!
(). The bang is suppose to indicate a dangerous alternative and
using a send()-like tool to bypass method visibility feels dangerous
to me. You better know what you are doing.

Regardless though, I can’t build any rational for reversing them,
beyond backwards compatibility with the current send(). While that’s
a noble goal, 1.9 is known to break compatibility when needed and if
that leads to a better thought-out API, I’m for it.

funcall() makes zero sense on the other side of the equation, so now
we need a name change too. To me, that’s one of the signs that this
suggestion is on the wrong path.

That’s just my opinion though. I could be wrong and I definitely
don’t make these decisions.

James Edward G. II

On 8/8/07, Trans [email protected] wrote:

I thought that was neat idea when I saw it. For some reason it feels
less overwhelming to me.

That is what I have been suggesting for years now – a dedicated
mailing list and a wiki for the community to jointly develop RCRs on.
It also wouldn’t hurt if there were some sort of stated protocols,
about what happens if an RCR gets substantial support by the
community.

T.

I guess UR right a Wiki would just do great :slight_smile:
That at least I have learned from this discussion …
Robert

On Aug 8, 9:11 am, James Edward G. II [email protected]
wrote:

James,

Like most Prag fans I’ve been dipping into Erlang a little lately.
One thing I noticed about their world was that they have one mailing
list that was just for discussing proposals to change the language.
I thought that was neat idea when I saw it. For some reason it feels
less overwhelming to me.

That is what I have been suggesting for years now – a dedicated
mailing list and a wiki for the community to jointly develop RCRs on.
It also wouldn’t hurt if there were some sort of stated protocols,
about what happens if an RCR gets substantial support by the
community.

T.

On Aug 8, 11:17 am, “Robert D.” [email protected] wrote:

On 8/8/07, Trans [email protected] wrote:

That is what I have been suggesting for years now – a dedicated
mailing list and a wiki for the community to jointly develop RCRs on.
It also wouldn’t hurt if there were some sort of stated protocols,
about what happens if an RCR gets substantial support by the
community.

I guess UR right a Wiki would just do great :slight_smile:
That at least I have learned from this discussion …
Robert

Interesting - I disagree. I very much like the idea of a single
champion with his/her own personal vision for an RCR. I’d not like to
put forth a well-thought-out design, and have some random chump come
in and decide that he personally thinks it should be different and
migrate my RCR to something different. Sure, I could vigilantly watch
my page and fight with the misguided fool in version control, but that
would turn me off more than the current system.

I like the idea of a single mailing list. I like the idea of a single
discussion thread (nested or not) per RCR, where modifications to the
proposal may be suggested. I don’t like the idea of letting everyone
put their grubby little hands all over my spec. :slight_smile:

On Aug 8, 10:29 am, Phrogz [email protected] wrote:

Robert
discussion thread (nested or not) per RCR, where modifications to the
proposal may be suggested. I don’t like the idea of letting everyone
put their grubby little hands all over my spec. :slight_smile:

Oh, I agree with you. There would have to still “owners” of an RCR. If
the honor system wasn’t enough --and I guess ultimately it’s not, then
the admins of an RCR would have to grant permissions for others to
work on it.

T.

On Aug 8, 8:57 am, James Edward G. II [email protected]
wrote:

You’re right in that there’s nothing really wrong with this
discussion. My personal feeling is that Trans’s solution to most
situations is to change Ruby to fit his world view. I feel like it
should be the other way around most of the time.

I admit that in the past I haven’t been as self-critiquing of some of
my thoughts as perhaps I should, prior to posting them to this list.
But that’s been quite some time ago. Nowadays, my posts in this regard
and fewer and a bit more thoughtful. Nonetheless, I still post more
than others on these matters b/c it interests me. Unfortunately there
has never been a dedicated forum for these discussions. I always get
flack on ruby-dev: “this is the not the place for this discussion”,
and I get flack here for being too much noise. I just have to accept
that I am an individual, with my own approach to things, and often
enough, for whatever reason, they’re “controversial”. Nonetheless, I
like to think my individualism adds, on the whole, positively to this
collective.

T.

On Aug 8, 8:15 am, James Edward G. II [email protected]
wrote:

On Aug 8, 2007, at 9:52 AM, Trans wrote:

I think that’s what you technical adepts have never grasped. The
problem isn’t technical, it’s haptic.

Your prose got too flowery for me here. I looked up haptic, as I
suspect you intended, and I still have no clue what you said.

Sorry, by “haptic” I meant the “hands-on” nature of the system. Maybe
“ergonomic” would have been a better word. In any case, I simply mean
that the system is not inviting b/c it is not conducive to the
process.

T.

On 8/8/07, Phrogz [email protected] wrote:

Robert
discussion thread (nested or not) per RCR, where modifications to the
proposal may be suggested. I don’t like the idea of letting everyone
put their grubby little hands all over my spec. :slight_smile:

Sure but it depends on the community, if we have the same community
than here I feel that a Wiki is a good choice and that the problems
you are afraid of are unlikely to happen.

And it can be exactly as what you liked in the thread based
discussion, the RCR will be writeable by the author and some admins
only, and everybody else will just join the discussion page of the
RCR, what’d you think about that format, I feel it would be one
possible approach.

Cheers
Robert

On 8/8/07, Phrogz [email protected] wrote:

Robert
discussion thread (nested or not) per RCR, where modifications to the
proposal may be suggested. I don’t like the idea of letting everyone
put their grubby little hands all over my spec. :slight_smile:

+1, right on.

On 8/8/07, Gregory B. [email protected] wrote:

That at least I have learned from this discussion …
I like the idea of a single mailing list. I like the idea of a single
discussion thread (nested or not) per RCR, where modifications to the
proposal may be suggested. I don’t like the idea of letting everyone
put their grubby little hands all over my spec. :slight_smile:

+1, right on.
funny you say that, because you really seemed to be annoyed with this
behavior, or are you thinking about ruby-core, please kindly evaluate
the format I suggested in my reply to Phrogz.

On 8/8/07, James Edward G. II [email protected] wrote:

should be the other way around most of the time.
funcall() was selected because Matz sometimes refers to receiverless
a noble goal, 1.9 is known to break compatibility when needed and if

Wow now things make sense again, thanks for your clear and brave
words. I guess that even Tom will appreciate them, but he’d rather say
that himself.

Ok I did just not share that POV, I feel that Tom is a dreamer,
dreaming out loudly, for me the signal/noise ration was good but I am
a dreamer too ;).

Please note that he gave in very fast, I really think he did no
lobbying. But I understand now why you(plural form) are annoyed with
this post.

May I make a suggestion, let us be a little more liberal about
expressing wishes and visions on this list and OTH post to ruby-core
when we are serious, than of course on ruby-core this discussion would
have been annoying,
While on this list people not interested could have ignored it without
being afraid that something is going to change the language.
Well with being less afraid at least;)

Just a thought of course.

Robert

On 8/8/07, Robert D. [email protected] wrote:

Please note that he gave in very fast, I really think he did no
lobbying. But I understand now why you(plural form) are annoyed with
this post.

James said lob. Not lobby. :slight_smile:

As in “Lob a big old slab of Chunky Bacon over to those Cartoon Foxes.
They look hungry!”

On 8/9/07, Gregory B. [email protected] wrote:

I think that many of us are relying on our knowledge of previous
discussions that are in the archive. Maybe that’s what makes you feel
that way?

I guess so.

I’m trying to understand what’s bothering you about the discussion
here, in hopes that we can understand what the problem is.

I’m not asking for help, I’m just venting. That’s all. It’s just
that the community seems to be a bit volatile. It probably has
nothing to do with the language itself.

On 8/9/07, Robert D. [email protected] wrote:

I’ve read this read. I totally respect everybody’s opinion in this
forum. You guys/gals are truly masters of turning what at first
appears to be a train wreck into something profound (Trans, James,
Robert, Gregory, David to name only a few of you great people). But
please, please don’t get elitist on us lowly programmers.

I’m seeing a “sectioning off” of rubyists from nubyists, and I’m a
little frustrated when people start talking about “oh, we should
really bring this up in this other list”.

I’m just venting. And I’m attaching myself to this particular thread
because of the signal to noise ratio that, for many of you, seems to
be a festering wound, when, in fact, it could be a blossoming flower.

My 1 cent (but I would like to think it’s worth more than that).

Todd

On 8/9/07, Todd B. [email protected] wrote:

the RCR (Ruby Change Request) process, to which there’s a whole
history. It’s not about exclusionary tactics on ruby-talk. Really,
browse through some of the archives of this list and you’ll see that
this list really isn’t like that :slight_smile:

These are sentiments I’ve had about ruby-talk long before this thread.
I can’t speak for every other nuby, obviously, but I thought I might
take my chance and throw in thoughts that others share, briefly, and
in an obscure thread. Maybe I shouldn’t have done that :slight_smile:
Au contraire, that too was a valuable contribution because it allowed
us at least to clarify some potential misunderstandings, I can only
agree with what David and Gregory have said, the RCR would not be
elitist at all, just something specific but open for everyone, there
are RCRs that are so simple (mine BTW :wink: that everybody can understand
them and there are others I do not understand.

The RCR list has its own frustrations. But when I read the original
post, what I saw was a frustration with Ruby in general.
Be careful with this interpretation, maybe Tom can clarify that
better, but we are all very happy with Ruby, just that sometime we
want it to be perfect.
Maybe Tom and myself are indeed passing on a negative image of Ruby in
our quest for perfection, which cannot exist anyway [BTW Gregory that
was what I meant with “inifinite wisdom, inifinite as in a negative
exponent” and maybe Gregory and James did well to point that out a
little bit, but I did not read those subtle signals in the first place
:frowning:
And it
seemed to me to become a “don’t ask don’t tell” attitude from
responders.
That was what indeed I was a little bit upset about, but I feel we
talked it out nicely, and that counts most.

Ruby has a life of its own, obviously. And, I’ll get used to that
fact. Just as long as the people I trust (like yourself) don’t
abandon people like me. I’ve been a member of many newgroups, but
I’ve never seen such a scary mixture of free will and danger and
happiness and sorrow. Maybe that’s a good thing.
I believe it is indeed :slight_smile:

Todd

Robert

On 8/9/07, [email protected] [email protected] wrote:

Hi –

On Fri, 10 Aug 2007, Todd B. wrote:

I think you’re misreading the signals.

You might be right about that.

The other-list talk is about
the RCR (Ruby Change Request) process, to which there’s a whole
history. It’s not about exclusionary tactics on ruby-talk. Really,
browse through some of the archives of this list and you’ll see that
this list really isn’t like that :slight_smile:

These are sentiments I’ve had about ruby-talk long before this thread.
I can’t speak for every other nuby, obviously, but I thought I might
take my chance and throw in thoughts that others share, briefly, and
in an obscure thread. Maybe I shouldn’t have done that :slight_smile:

The RCR list has its own frustrations. But when I read the original
post, what I saw was a frustration with Ruby in general. And it
seemed to me to become a “don’t ask don’t tell” attitude from
responders.

Ruby has a life of its own, obviously. And, I’ll get used to that
fact. Just as long as the people I trust (like yourself) don’t
abandon people like me. I’ve been a member of many newgroups, but
I’ve never seen such a scary mixture of free will and danger and
happiness and sorrow. Maybe that’s a good thing.

David

Todd

On 8/9/07, Todd B. [email protected] wrote:

On 8/9/07, Robert D. [email protected] wrote:

I’ve read this read. I totally respect everybody’s opinion in this
forum. You guys/gals are truly masters of turning what at first
appears to be a train wreck into something profound (Trans, James,
Robert, Gregory, David to name only a few of you great people). But
please, please don’t get elitist on us lowly programmers.

I don’t think that’s the intention. At least, I wouldn’t want to do
that with my contributions here.

I’m seeing a “sectioning off” of rubyists from nubyists, and I’m a
little frustrated when people start talking about “oh, we should
really bring this up in this other list”.

To some extent I see the same thing, but it doesn’t have to be that
way, and I’d rather it not be. I’ve held the view that RubyTalk is
highly valuable for discussions and getting ideas, but can be somewhat
unwieldy when it comes to decision making.

I totally think that it’s worth discussing RCRs before submitting them
here, getting everyone’s opinions, not just some group of Illuminati
hoarding all the Ruby secrets.

That having been said (and maybe it’s not so apparent to newer
members), every once in a while the same potential RCR becomes a
recurring topic, with only slightly new opinions showing up in each
one. That’s what my original comment about the topic being boring
was. I was more saying, ‘let’s bring this discussion to a place where
some decisions can be made, since this has come up so much before’.

I can see how that might seem a little abrupt without some context,
and maybe I also chose my words poorly. I think if anything what this
thread has exposed is that the RCR process may need some revamping so
that it feels more inviting to people, and so that we can get some
direct discourse going with the folks who can really make these
changes, the Ruby core team.

No disrespect to whoever mentioned that Matz reads RubyTalk, but
although that may be true, I wouldn’t want to put the onus on him to
keep an eye out for discussion here. It’s hard enough for your
average hacker to keep up on posts here, let alone someone responsible
for the language we’re all here because of. :slight_smile:

So I guess what I’m saying is that although some folks find the
possibilities of RubyTalk endless, I think the advantages are a little
more limited. It’d be great to say that all decisions could be made
in the middle of a crowded bazaar, but it’s just not pragmatic, even
in open source communities.

So I hope that we can use RubyTalk for what it’s good for, drumming up
ideas, sharing discussions, solving problems that scale to this level
of traffic with the diverse skill levels of folks subscribed here.
However, I get worried when valuable ideas come up over and over again
but never make it to the next level where they can be acted upon.
Hopefully that makes some sense.

I’m just venting. And I’m attaching myself to this particular thread
because of the signal to noise ratio that, for many of you, seems to
be a festering wound, when, in fact, it could be a blossoming flower.

Sure, I really don’t see the noise here to be a wound, I just feel
like there is a lot of worthwhile discussion that just ends up in the
wrong place. This thread happened to be one of them.

-greg

Hi –

On Fri, 10 Aug 2007, Todd B. wrote:

I’m seeing a “sectioning off” of rubyists from nubyists, and I’m a
little frustrated when people start talking about “oh, we should
really bring this up in this other list”.

I think you’re misreading the signals. The other-list talk is about
the RCR (Ruby Change Request) process, to which there’s a whole
history. It’s not about exclusionary tactics on ruby-talk. Really,
browse through some of the archives of this list and you’ll see that
this list really isn’t like that :slight_smile:

David

On 8/9/07, Gregory B. [email protected] wrote:

On 8/8/07, Robert D. [email protected] wrote:

Please note that he gave in very fast, I really think he did no
lobbying. But I understand now why you(plural form) are annoyed with
this post.

James said lob. Not lobby. :slight_smile:
Sorry James, I thought it was a neologism for lobby, funny these
languages…

As in “Lob a big old slab of Chunky Bacon over to those Cartoon Foxes.
They look hungry!”
Nice example indeed in the Ruby Context.