Open Source is Not About You

Though Rich is right, it pains me to read this because it is indicative of some disputes in the clojure community. I might be mistaken, but it seems that Rich is reacting to Chas Emericks' twitter post (https://twitter.com/cemerick/status/1067111260611850240). In his comments he has stated: "Finally, from a practical perspective, my core-level contributions always came from some source of pressing need in an actual, present, needs-to-work project. If I know a problem isn't going to be triaged for months and solved…

One submission in the past with lots of good discussions: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=18538123 | 734 points | 2018 | 281 comments One of the main takeaways personally from this post, is the unique position Clojure (and other lisps) are in, where language additions can be done as libraries instead of changing the core of the language. Other languages don't (always) have this possibility. Taking TypeScript as one example. If 20% of users want to be able to do something in TypeScript that…

> As a user of something open source you are not thereby entitled to anything at all I understand what the author means, but I think that in any human-2-human interaction, we are all entitled to at least basic courtesy. For example, if you show courtesy by contributing to an open source project and following all the guidelines they have, I think it's fair to assume that courtesy will be shown in return. I know that may be difficult to…

Since the comments on the Gist are almost exclusively in agreement, here is a rare one that adds a sobering touch: https://gist.github.com/richhickey/1563cddea1002958f96e7ba95...