| In an open source tool, there is no value without community of contributors. The value of the discussed project is exactly zero right now in the best-case scenario. It's more likely to be negative: because there has been no contact with reality (no users have used it in production), the risk is higher than using the existing one. IOW, 1. Only after some brave souls use this in production, will the value of this project rise to zero. 2. Only after a community (could even just be a single person) demonstrates commitment to this project will it have a non-zero positive value. Since it was done primarily by someone who was never part of the original community, and they have yet to demonstrate a commitment to maintenance, there is no value to this project. > While I agree with your point in general, rewriting a big widely used project in a stricter language is always a good thing. Assuming everything else stays the same, sure. But everything else is not the same - there is no community, no commitment to maintenance, high risk and, worst of all, no human involvement. This project has negative value now due to the risk. > It improves the dev-ex of people contributing to these projects What contributors? There are none, and there are unlikely to be any for the majority of the new repos created like this. Improving the devex of zero contributors improves exactly nothing. > Python is inherently limited in which kinds of abstraction it can express. Sure, but successful projects require committed humans. This has none. |
surely you aren't calling binary releases of binutils 'projects'? why would you call this thing a 'project' in the sense you're using?