On Sunday, 24 February 2013 at 07:58:40 UTC, Andrei Alexandrescu
wrote:
On 2/24/13 4:58 AM, H. S. Teoh wrote:
I find this rather frustrating... sometimes it feels like
Phobos is
suffering from premature standardization - we have a module
with a
design that isn't very good, but just because it somehow got
put into
Phobos, now it has to stick, no matter what.
It's a good sign - growing pains and acquiring users and all.
Python broke even "hello, world" from one major release to
another.
Andrei
I don't think this is true at all.
With respect -- I think Walter has absolutely no clue about
backwards compatibility and deprecation.
Here's how it should work:
1. You make promises (about future compatibility).
2. You keep those promises.
Walter tries to do (2). without doing (1). The result is the
insanity we've had for years. It means an unpredictable,
unplanned set of often undesirable behaviour is preserved, that
doesn't help stability anyway.
We need to do (1).
Can we please stop pretending this is acceptable?
It's not "growing pains" or anything like that. It's a basic
misunderstanding of stability.
