I wrote What design strategies matter for new languages seeking long-term, widespread adoption when approaching a problem-domain with existing languages? and just noticed that it's gotten two "needs details / clarity" close votes, a "needs more focus" close-vote, and an "opinion-based" close-vote. At the time that I write this meta post, it is at revision 5. I'm not sure at what revisions those close-votes were made.

Here are some recent changes I have made to it:

  • To "But for those who are, what overarching, high-level design strategies matter", I have added "and why? How do those design strategies help achieve that goal?". I think this should help solicit "good subjective" (I.e. it "[inspires] answers that explain “why” and “how”")

  • I also added: "Please give concrete examples from languages who have used the design strategies you name and have went on to achieve the stated goal. I.e. back up your claims with evidence."

I'd like to improve this question and make it on-topic.

  • What details could it be missing?
  • What parts should I further clarify?
  • In what ways could it still be doing "bad subjective" instead of "good subjective"?

1 Answer 1


I'm not sure why someone voted to close it as opinion-based, but the two other close reasons make sense. "High level design strategies" is a really nebulous concept. What exactly are you looking for there? Can you give examples of what is and what isn't a "high level design strategy"? Without some constraint, you may get widely varying answers based on each person's own definition of the concept. Adding some examples and non-examples would go a long way towards helping people know what kinds of things you are and are not looking for. "Too broad" makes sense in that the question is neither restricted by language nor "high level design strategy". A better version of the question from a scoping perspective would be "How did strategy X help (or not help) language Y achieve widespread adoption?" Even if you didn't restrict by design strategy, that would still lead to a better question that isn't likely to have 50 different ways to answer it.

  • $\begingroup$ on the point on "high level design strategies", I can see what you mean. Part of my original intention of not giving any examples was to avoid leading the question, or boxing in what people might think of. I did give some non-examples (examples of high-level strategies that the question isn't about), which I'd hoped would kind of get across the point while avoiding leading the question or boxing in people's thinking, while additionally constraining the scope. I'll try to think of what I can do further. $\endgroup$
    – starball
    Commented May 22, 2023 at 1:56
  • $\begingroup$ on the point of narrowing the scope to a specific strategy and a specific language, I've actually intentionally done something like that in another Q&A I've posted, and it's an approach for focusing Q&A that I'd also generally advocate for more of. In this question, however, I'm intentionally looking for more breadth and leaving it more open-ended as to what examples to use. I suppose if that makes it off-topic according to community consensus, I'd accept that, with a twinge of some feeling that I can't find the right word for right now. $\endgroup$
    – starball
    Commented May 22, 2023 at 2:00
  • $\begingroup$ given my goals for the question which I've elaborated on in my above comments, on the point of clarifying "high level design strategies", I've now added "It's about what the language has to do or be have a place in the ecosystem it wants to enter- not about what the people designing it have to do on top of designing it.", and on the point of broadness in example sampling, I've added "This question intentionally doesn't constrain the sought examples to any one specific language. What I'm seeking here is a bigger-picture view." $\endgroup$
    – starball
    Commented May 22, 2023 at 2:17
  • $\begingroup$ I realize that to a significant extent, this is basically me saying "I stand my ground on what I want this question to be, and have just added some attempt to clarify on that"... and yeah. That's true. In any case, thanks so much for taking the time to give feedback and even just look at the question. I appreciate it. $\endgroup$
    – starball
    Commented May 22, 2023 at 2:18

You must log in to answer this question.

Not the answer you're looking for? Browse other questions tagged .