> Regarding development: I'd appreciate if you elaborate over your critique.
There's nothing to elaborate, really. If you list all "status.tested" issues, how many are tested?
Let's take the top few as of today.
1. Malignant output from react/link, https://github.com/red/red/issues/3713
fix: https://github.com/red/red/commit/644be4b1e3bfcf70a5f9f5e006...
One-line fix, sure. Where's the test?
2. new-line flags are not cleared on subsequent calls, https://github.com/red/red/issues/3707
Fix: https://github.com/red/red/commit/b7ee2846b58a1328d57002b3ed...
Severl line-fix. Where's the test?
3. stack overflow on limited append/insert, https://github.com/red/red/issues/3705
The fix contains a single test even though the issue provided three different failure modes: https://github.com/red/red/commit/bd41d35ee5a73cd5779647b503...
And so on and so forth. I remember seeing a "status.tested" which added easily a hundred lines of new code with zero tests.
Funnily enough I see you've added a "test.written" label, which really shouldn't be there because that's what "status.tested" is for.
----
But forget issues and tests for the moment.
Out of 44 contributors to Red, only two have anything significant to contribute: the people who actually develop Red.
Of all the issues reported almost none contain code to fix the issue. Almost all issues are fixed by the same two people who develop Red.
Perhaps it's due to the fact that about zero percent of Red code is documented? Or that "Code written by experienced users (and Red codebase in particular) is a hard nut to crack"? Which is kinda ironic, considering how the authors and proponents gush about Red's simplicity.
Go back to the first issue in the list above. It's a one-line fix. So, surely, it could be fixed by someone else but the author of the language?
Too bad the file where the issue is fixed is this: https://github.com/red/red/blob/644be4b1e3bfcf70a5f9f5e0066f...
336 lines of no significant comments other than trivia for the author himself.
"New line flags not cleared" whose fix is just a few lines? Oh, it's in a 3000-line file with no comments, https://github.com/red/red/blob/b7ee2846b58a1328d57002b3ed2d...
And so on and so forth.
And since very very few of those lines are covered by any tests (even for issues reported and fixed), how is anyone except the two authors can ever fix those issues or contribute?
If "Code written by experienced users (and Red codebase in particular) is a hard nut to crack", how can you expect people to believe in it's "simplicity and fun"?
----
There's nothing to elaborate, really. If you list all "status.tested" issues, how many are tested?
Let's take the top few as of today.
1. Malignant output from react/link, https://github.com/red/red/issues/3713
fix: https://github.com/red/red/commit/644be4b1e3bfcf70a5f9f5e006...
One-line fix, sure. Where's the test?
2. new-line flags are not cleared on subsequent calls, https://github.com/red/red/issues/3707
Fix: https://github.com/red/red/commit/b7ee2846b58a1328d57002b3ed...
Severl line-fix. Where's the test?
3. stack overflow on limited append/insert, https://github.com/red/red/issues/3705
The fix contains a single test even though the issue provided three different failure modes: https://github.com/red/red/commit/bd41d35ee5a73cd5779647b503...
And so on and so forth. I remember seeing a "status.tested" which added easily a hundred lines of new code with zero tests.
Funnily enough I see you've added a "test.written" label, which really shouldn't be there because that's what "status.tested" is for.
----
But forget issues and tests for the moment.
Out of 44 contributors to Red, only two have anything significant to contribute: the people who actually develop Red.
Of all the issues reported almost none contain code to fix the issue. Almost all issues are fixed by the same two people who develop Red.
Perhaps it's due to the fact that about zero percent of Red code is documented? Or that "Code written by experienced users (and Red codebase in particular) is a hard nut to crack"? Which is kinda ironic, considering how the authors and proponents gush about Red's simplicity.
Go back to the first issue in the list above. It's a one-line fix. So, surely, it could be fixed by someone else but the author of the language?
Too bad the file where the issue is fixed is this: https://github.com/red/red/blob/644be4b1e3bfcf70a5f9f5e0066f...
336 lines of no significant comments other than trivia for the author himself.
"New line flags not cleared" whose fix is just a few lines? Oh, it's in a 3000-line file with no comments, https://github.com/red/red/blob/b7ee2846b58a1328d57002b3ed2d...
And so on and so forth.
And since very very few of those lines are covered by any tests (even for issues reported and fixed), how is anyone except the two authors can ever fix those issues or contribute?
If "Code written by experienced users (and Red codebase in particular) is a hard nut to crack", how can you expect people to believe in it's "simplicity and fun"? ----