Here are some slides with technical details of the proposal:
https://docs.google.com/presentation/d/1V4vmC54gJkwAss1nfEt9...
I'll make a prediction now. We'll be seeing things like this happening in the Microsoft code base in a few years. I'm a huge fan of Microsoft and their open source effort, but I'm not above believing that corporate interests win in the end.
EDIT: Thanks for the downvotes, care to explain where I'm wrong? I'm sharing something called an opinion.
I'm a huge fan of Microsoft and their open source effort, but I'm not above believing that corporate interests win in the end.
You can save yourself some suspense: yes corporate interests win. That's a result of a business model where corporations serve faceless shareholders. You are either making money or you aren't. The corporation is a soulless entity that workers and money pass through.
This seems like pretty common human behavior, no?
On a less cynical note, this kind of behavior is why a language designed by a bunch of corporations (JS) seems less and less interesting. Good luck practically influencing development if you aren't embedded in an organization already.
EDIT: Or just robo-downvote me, lol instead of presenting a counterpoint.
I'm not in favor of the msbuild system at all, it's not good. But it works, it's reasonable once you learn it (like most other build systems), and since they're footing the bill and have to keep the entire system in a coherent state, they decided what they did.
The only reason we saw it, was that they've opened up their development process a lot earlier than they used to do.
No.
Thank you for correcting me.
What do you mean by that? If consensus is required any member can veto a proposal, not just those belonging to the major corporations?
Google cancelled a proposal because reasons, which will be found out in January apparently.
> One of the important priorities in TC39 is to achieve consensus - which means that any employee of any member company can always block any proposal. It's far far better for anyone to be able to block, than to arrive at a spec that "not everyone" is willing to implement - this is, by a large large margin, the lesser evil, I assure you.
My concern would be if Google would oppose something desperately needed by the community because the feature they are blocking for will benefit them in some way financially. I'm sure it's a hard case to make, but I am curious nonetheless.
Google, in this context, is the developer of one of the main implementations. It is also many other things, which do not matter. You might equally well say "what happens when the consensys is a six-letter word". You're being downvoted for dragging in irrelevant and inflammatory rubbish.
I don't know, but I wouldn't be surprised if the C++ committee has a similar consensus goal, possibly informal, and that gcc has an effective veto. It's a major implementation. Is that bad? No?
I have an active imagination.
Proponents were definitely vocal about it, but I don't know how well that translates into actual popularity; at least not like async/await. Nor does it seem to be the type of thing where all sufficiently experienced experts agree. As far as I can tell, it's been a divisive topic among the intelligentsia since day one. Correct me if I'm wrong.