On Tuesday, September 27, 2011 1:57:03 PM UTC-5, Arthur Edelstein wrote: > > So my request for Clojure's future development, is that backwards > compatibility not be broken. This means that Clojure code needs a way > of designating what Clojure version it is targeted for. >
I'm with you, Arthur. Beyond the work that 1.3.0 has caused in the immediate sense (about a week of my labor) it has affected my ability to invest in Clojure. I pay my rent as a consultant, and I cannot in full consciousness advise clients that Clojure is a good idea right now for long-term projects. Who knows what breakage 1.4.0 will bring? The thought really makes me pause. Carrying around a legacy is obviously very painful for project maintainers, but doing so responsibly is a sign of project maturity. Clojure is not quite there. At this point, for many potential users l can only advise that they keep an eye on Clojure and wait and see, and for now choose more dependable platforms. Obviously, I represent only a certain segment of Clojure users. Others do not care as much about long-term investment. I'm afraid, though, that my segment wasn't heard at all in this case in the march to improve the language. A related point: the amount of breakage that 1.3.0 has caused -- particularly the rearranging of the entire contrib universe -- would have warranted, in my opinion, a "2.0" designation for the release. The "0" after the "2" tells people that this is a fresh start, and is not intended to be mature. The wary would then know to wait until a "2.1" before migrating. -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Clojure" group. To post to this group, send email to clojure@googlegroups.com Note that posts from new members are moderated - please be patient with your first post. To unsubscribe from this group, send email to clojure+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/clojure?hl=en
