Call for signatories for J2

[Paul Rubin]

Michael Sparks <michaels at rd.bbc.co.uk> writes:
> It might (or might not) be too late but just as a check I checked
> to see if "per" is used by any projects listed in the proposal. (I
> was checking Twisted and Zope for "using" so decided to do "per" as well)

I'm still not crazy about J2 but I like "per" much better than "using".

I'm afraid that the clpy proposals, and the @pie syntax, both seem to
me like "extreme programming", i.e. an approach of "if you see a
reasonable looking approach to a problem, implement it without
worrying too much, and re-do ('refactor') it afterwards if it turns
out not to be the right thing.  But for new language syntax, whatever
gets implemented, we are going to be stuck with.  There will be no
refactoring possible.  It's imperative to get it right the first time.
The Scheme community understood this idea and was extremely careful
about adding new features to Scheme even when it was clear that the
features were needed.  I think Scheme benefited as a result.