The feedback brings up issues, bugs, inconsistencies, irregularities.

这些反馈把问题、漏洞、不一致的设计和不规则的设计等反映给我们

So there are things we know we want to do. They end up on the list，and then we keep iterating.

然后我们就知道自己接下来的工作了。列表上排满了这些东西，然后我们用迭代的方式修正 它们。

We’ll look at one and ask, “Do we have any new thoughts on this? No new thoughts?

我们看到一个问题就会问：“对这个问题，大家有没有什么新看法？

Well, this thing has really rotted here for several weeks,

没想法吗？嗯，这个事情已经在这儿待了几周了，

let’s try to attack it for thirty minutes and see if we can get somewhere this time.”

我们来用30分钟解决一下，看看这次是不是能想出办法。”

So when something smells bad enough

也就是说，当事情到了比较糟糕的地步

Or when something smells good enough that you want to do something with it in the next release, you work on it.

或者如果事情进展很好，以至于我们想把它放在下一个版本里面发布的时候，我们就会投入很多。

But I think this process is just a way to make sure nothing falls through the cracks.

但是我认为，这个流程只是保证我们不遗漏事情而已。

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。也许一些事情已经拖了很久，

and then maybe you decide you’re not going to do it.

你就会放弃它们。

But at least it gets captured， and there’s a way to revisit it.

但是，至少它们没有被漏掉，并且你也可以再回过头去看这些事情。

It will either happen or not happen, but it won’t get lost.

事情有可能继续，也可能中止，但是不会被忽略掉。

Who was on the C# design team and what roles did they play?

C#设计小组的成员有哪些？他们各自的任务如何？

The original C# design team was Scott Wiltamuth, Peter Golde, Peter Sollich, Eric Gunnerson, and myself.

C#设计小组最初有斯科特威尔塔姆斯、彼得戈尔德、彼得 索里契、埃里克加纳森和我。

The C# 2.0 design team is Peter Hallam， Shon Katzenberger, Todd Proebsting, and myself.

C#2.0 的设计小组有彼得哈勒姆、肖恩卡曾伯格、托德博尔伯斯汀和我。

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归功于微软研究部门的唐塞姆和安德鲁肯尼迪。

How much of the design of C# was based on usability research,

C#的设计分别有多大一部分是基于可用性研究、

how much on marketing choices, and how much on aesthetics?

市场抉择和编程美学？

Ultimately, good language design boils down to assembling a team of people who have good taste.

归根结底，良好的语言设计需要一个有品位的团队。

It boils down to programming aesthetics, as you are saying.

就像你提到的，要归功于编程美学。

Good taste is extremely subjective and hard to define， but you can sort of recognize it when you see it.

好的品位很难定义，因为它是非常主观的。但是当你看到某种东西的时候就会想起它。

And I don’t think any number of usability studies can give you what taste gives you,

我认为无论多少可用性研究都不如品味带给你的那么多，