評論
打印
The feedback brings up issues, bugs, inconsistencies, irregularities.
這些反饋把問題、漏洞、不一致的設(shè)計和不規(guī)則的設(shè)計等反映給我們
So there are things we know we want to do. They end up on the list，and then we keep iterating.
然后我們就知道自己接下來的工作了。列表上排滿了這些東西，然后我們用迭代的方式修正 它們。
We’ll look at one and ask, “Do we have any new thoughts on this? No new thoughts?
我們看到一個問題就會問：“對這個問題，大家有沒有什么新看法？
Well, this thing has really rotted here for several weeks,
沒想法嗎？嗯，這個事情已經(jīng)在這兒待了幾周了，
let’s try to attack it for thirty minutes and see if we can get somewhere this time.”
我們來用30分鐘解決一下，看看這次是不是能想出辦法。”
So when something smells bad enough
也就是說，當(dāng)事情到了比較糟糕的地步
Or when something smells good enough that you want to do something with it in the next release, you work on it.
或者如果事情進展很好，以至于我們想把它放在下一個版本里面發(fā)布的時候，我們就會投入很多。
But I think this process is just a way to make sure nothing falls through the cracks.
但是我認(rèn)為，這個流程只是保證我們不遺漏事情而已。
You put everything on that list.Something can sit on that list for a long time,
所有的事情都列在曰程表上面。也許一些事情已經(jīng)拖了很久，
and then maybe you decide you’re not going to do it.
你就會放棄它們。
But at least it gets captured， and there’s a way to revisit it.
但是，至少它們沒有被漏掉，并且你也可以再回過頭去看這些事情。
It will either happen or not happen, but it won’t get lost.
事情有可能繼續(xù)，也可能中止，但是不會被忽略掉。
Who was on the C# design team and what roles did they play?
C#設(shè)計小組的成員有哪些？他們各自的任務(wù)如何？
The original C# design team was Scott Wiltamuth, Peter Golde, Peter Sollich, Eric Gunnerson, and myself.
C#設(shè)計小組最初有斯科特威爾塔姆斯、彼得戈爾德、彼得 索里契、埃里克加納森和我。
The C# 2.0 design team is Peter Hallam， Shon Katzenberger, Todd Proebsting, and myself.
C#2.0 的設(shè)計小組有彼得哈勒姆、肖恩卡曾伯格、托德博爾伯斯汀和我。
Most of the credit for generics goes to Don Syme and Andrew Kennedy from Microsoft Research.
大部分泛型的成功都要歸功于微軟研究部門的唐塞姆和安德魯肯尼迪。
How much of the design of C# was based on usability research,
C#的設(shè)計分別有多大一部分是基于可用性研究、
how much on marketing choices, and how much on aesthetics?
市場抉擇和編程美學(xué)？
Ultimately, good language design boils down to assembling a team of people who have good taste.
歸根結(jié)底，良好的語言設(shè)計需要一個有品位的團隊。
It boils down to programming aesthetics, as you are saying.
就像你提到的，要歸功于編程美學(xué)。
Good taste is extremely subjective and hard to define， but you can sort of recognize it when you see it.
好的品位很難定義，因為它是非常主觀的。但是當(dāng)你看到某種東西的時候就會想起它。
And I don’t think any number of usability studies can give you what taste gives you,
我認(rèn)為無論多少可用性研究都不如品味帶給你的那么多，
