Stefan Huchler schrieb am Di., 25. Okt. 2016 um 19:06 Uhr: > Philipp Stephani writes: > > > That might be the intention, but I expect the outcome will be that > > interest in alternative paradigms gets lost (unless such alternative > > paradigms would also be merged and be available in parallel). > > In hope to bring the discussion further without knowing to much about > the topic, you talked about "in your experiment" so do you have some > sort of proof-of-concept code working with emacs? > Yes, I'd be happy to upload it to my Github repo or to a new branch in the Savannah repo if there's interest. > > Are you willing to invest much time in implementing your solution? I think this is important, so I'd be willing to spend some significant amount of time on it. If it turns out to be a huge time sink, we'd still have the existing concurrency branch, so we wouldn't be worse off than we are now. > It seems > to be similar to the commercial world, where people say "put your money > where your mouth is", just in this case "put your code where your mouth > is". > > That's a good principle. > I think people would be more convinced if there is some commitment, > cause else you can formulate the nicest thing and nothing will happen. > > I dont want to attack you but maybe help you to "sell" your idea better. > > I don't see it as an attack. I'm happy to experiment with the various options and participate in concrete design discussions. > But maybe I get the situation wrong, just looks for me like thats the > major motivation why people now push for that mostly done solution > instead of pie in the sky? > > > My branch can run all examples from the Go tutorial, so I wouldn't call it "pie in the sky". There are obviously open questions (such as Windows support), but I think it's a good start for a discussion.