What have we learned in the last 24 hours? When you’ve got a good thing going, don’t tinker with it.
My initial reaction to hearing Rares’ proposal was an immediate ‘no way’: it’s too late in the game to start thinking about changing the rules. I was, however, curious enough to wish to see a proof-of-concept, so a big thank you to Rares for taking the time to build the beautiful demo. (which, if you feel like tinkering a bit more Rares, should be added to the Garden-proper sans script)
My feelings still leaned towards ‘no’ for all the reasons I summarized yesterday, and some more that I didn’t (which were adequately covered in the comments). But in the interest of progress, I was curious to see what the consensus was. And most felt the same as I did.
Do I think the idea has merit? Of course, otherwise I wouldn’t have posted it. Do I think there’s some good opportunity for experimentation of separation of behaviour and structure? No doubt. But it just doesn’t fit with what we’re doing now.
I still get suggestions for improvements over the existing Garden. A lot of them are good ideas. Many of them are incremental, although some could be revolutionary if they were done right. I’ll keep advocating anyone who has a spark of an idea to run with it and see where it goes; I don’t discourage anyone from creating a similar project. But changing our established goals for the Garden obviously isn’t a good idea now.
Oh, and I did delete quite a few comments — don’t take it personally, some were valid, just off-topic; hence the warning. I’m playing with methods of making the comments on this site a little more relevant. More on that later.