[sigy]

It seems that open sourcing it while it is growing up actually makes more sense. If you want community involvement, ideas, testing, contributions, and so on, then hiding the project source is antithetical to why most people participate in open source in the first place.

Open source can mean more than just a license. It should mean more than just gifting a code base once you think you're done.

I don't mean to come across as bitter or entitled. I just question the value of waiting till the last minute. For now, the promise only stands as a way to pull people into the fold. I've seen this kind of promise many times before in projects much like this.

[alixanderwang]

thank you for the advice, I do appreciate it, as I'm no expert in open source. one thing to clarify is the idea that we're tying a bow and chucking it across the fence. we'll be far from finished when we open source d2. the intention was to internally seed the initial design (of both the language and the code) -- the first minute of building -- quickly, within a small team. i'm really grateful for all the interest today from everyone, hopefully HN will let me post the repo to update people shortly (w/o considering it a dupe).

[jrmiii]

The guidelines for dupes require "substantially new information", IMHO the source absolutely constitutes substantially new information and I look forward to seeing it - I think your video demo was very compelling.

It reminds me of that adage, "Start your business, the tool you build to run your business is now your business"