Issue #106 raises a few small issues with the goals doc as approved. Some are small, but in particular I'll emphasize the question:
Do we want to say anything about "reasonably fast by default" or "favors constructs that can be compiled to efficient code" or something like that?
I think this is something that we clearly want for performance, and should be laid out.
Additionally, while considering justification for changes in PR 80, I noted there is no explicit goal to provide developer-facing documentation. I believe this is an intended part of the community goals, and could be inferred from current ecosystem text, but may be better if explicit.
Add paragraphs to address performance of idiomatic code and developer-facing documentation, as well as making other small fixes.
Performance of idiomatic code:
Under "Performance-critical software", we establish that it should be possible to write high-performance code with Carbon. However, if taken strictly, we could be saying something like "it's okay if idiomatic code is predictably slow, as long as developers have tools to 'open up the hood'." That is not the intent, and so addressing the case of routine code performance offers the reassurance that Carbon will prioritize performance consistently, regardless of whether performance tuning is done.
Developer-facing documentation:
"Language tools and ecosystem" addresses the specification and tooling explicitly. However, developer-facing documentation is also part of the ecosystem, and part of supporting ramp-up training by new Carbon developers. Such documentation should be an explicit project priority.
Other changes are incremental improvements to the goal text, and mainly presented in this change for consistency of review.
A principle is another way of addressing non-obvious conclusions based on goals. However, performance of idiomatic code seems quick to state, and not worth splitting off to a separate doc. I believe the cost-benefit favors keeping it in the goals doc.
This addresses a number of rough edges and small missing pieces in the original proposal, providing useful clarification. This follow up is expected as part of the launch and iterate process we use to keep our velocity up.
User-facing documentation and speed-by-default should be first-order priorities for Carbon.