[ncannasse]

Hi ben, it's clearly not the best place to discuss this, but I still wanted to leave you some message here, hope it'll reach you.

I don't think that you get a good language by having design by committee. I'm all for democratic process and contributions in many different areas, but you simply can't apply that to language design, but you really need a way to understand and see the big picture, and not only reason about a particular local feature.

The only thing we could do better here would be to spend more time motivating my decisions so they seem less random to people from outside, but it's time consuming to do so and I'm sadly lacking the time for it.

I understand how this can be badly perceived but you shouldn't put ill intend behind what has happened to your proposals.

Also, I saw you started designing your own language, which is very different from Haxe from what I have seen, so it seems to me what you wanted Haxe to be was simply not what it is and will be.

[bendmorris]

Thanks for the response Nicolas. I'm not reading any ill intent into this. I do think that it's time for the Haxe Foundation to make time to be more transparent, or it will continue to stunt your growth as community members get frustrated and leave. As you know, criticism like this isn't new, and it isn't going to go away.

If you don't feel design decisions can be made effectively by a committee and prefer to steer these decisions yourself, that's understandable - just remove the language about the core team voting on proposals or reaching consensus, because in practice it's not how the process actually works.