On Sun, Mar 18, 2012 at 11:12 AM, Josh Suereth <joshua....@gmail.com> wrote: > I think using imports to enable features (like macros and dynamic) in a > limited scope is nice. It's far more powerful and expressive than using > compiler flags
A semantic nitpick: it's far finer-grained than using compiler flags, but I would not agree that it's more powerful.
> I think it can help separate the *social* issues (higher kinded, implciits, > etc. etc.) from the *technical* issues (is import the right syntax)?.
This is the wrong distinction again, I think. I want to be very clear about terminology here. Higher-kinded types, implicits and so on are not a social issue any more than bad-mannered blog posts are a technical one. The social issue I think we're referring to has to do with how people learn, use and/or abuse new things, and how they adapt individually and collectively to changes over time. The distinction you're drawing here is instead between technical problems and technical solutions.
That being said, I agree that it's very valuable to identify the problems (e.g. "surprise! you're using reflection and you didn't know it!") separately from the proposed solutions (e.g. "warn on use of reflection"). That's what I was hoping to highlight in my original tl;dr essay here :)