I don't know, we can "encourage" people to develop interesting stuff all day long - what really matters though is being self-motivated - at that point, it no longer matters if someone is supportive of your idea or not, just like Thorsten was hinting at in his original response.
Some of the folks around here have meanwhile grown a reputation for encouraging/discouraging certain developments and being kinda bitter in their tone (not talking to anyone speifically here), without offering to also provide a better alternative - that is one of the key reasons why fgdata development, and consequently Nasal coding, has become such a huge thing, despite many people realizing that a scripted approach may often be inferior compared to native hooks, and possibly even add to other long-standing challenges or complicating efforts to modernize the architecture of the sim.
And then we have people like flug (Bombable), Thorsten (AW, ALS, EarthView etc), TheTom (Canvas), poweroftwo (osgEarth) who don't seem to be bothered by discouraging comments, and simply go ahead and implement their vision, no matter what.
In contrast to that, you can literally find dozens of debates in the archives where very accomplished contributors were discouraging the development of these features using these approaches.
Concerning Bomber in particular, he must have spent hundreds of hours on the forum arguing with folks, whereas it would have literally taken just a few weekends to tinker with Nasal coding and make heads and tails of the Bombable addon and extend this according to his needs (T4T) - which isn't to say that this would have been the perfect approach, but it would have at least been /viable/.
Now, referring to myself, whenever I discouraged some effort/approach on the forum it was mainly for technical reasons I think - such as the 777 EBF code that I-NEMO came up with IIRC - I didn't, and still don't, believe that this is a future-proof way to implement an EBF framework - obviously, people are free to do whatever they want, but I'd rather support efforts/approaches that I believe in. Nevertheless, when I see someone pursuing a problematic approach, I may provide the corresponding feedback - however, people can safely ignore that obviously
Then again, I can entirely relate to the key argument some of you have been making (but certainly NOT in the context of Thorsten's quoted comments) - the
pui2canvas effort is a much better example, because it's been actively discouraged on the devel list by some of the most senior/active core developers over the last couple of years, and it's been stated to be considered competing/conflicting with core development goals and seen as discouraging for some to know that people are actively pursuing a Canvas based UI, despite the Qt5 effort having made such progress recently.