On Thursday, 23 May 2013 at 08:50:11 UTC, Dicebot wrote:
On Wednesday, 22 May 2013 at 23:35:14 UTC, Jesse Phillips wrote:
So while people claim they don't want breaking change, what
they really mean is "I only want breaking change when I decide
I to take it." And each person/situation will have different
desire on what they wish to have broken. What we want is to
select changes that people will want, make it easy to
make/expect the changes, and enough time they will make the
choice on their own.
That is exactly what I want! But if we keep saying "we are
stable, trying to be stable, almost there" it won't change. It
requires some formal process, not only simple desire to be
stable. Current attitude just hides away real issues inventing
local meaning for "stability".
I realize this, but you are arguing by using examples of those
that don't ever want to change (they do exist, and they only
change because they are forced to).
There shouldn't need to bring up the works/doesn't argument
because that isn't what we are after. We want to provide some
category of bug fixes or library additions for a defined period
of time, while elsewhere we are making language improvements,
which will eventual freeze and then later replace previous
release.
Those who wish to never receive a non-breaking change are stuck
with whatever version of the compiler they started building with.
I'm not saying this to be mean, only because you can't change the
compiler without the potential of having broken something
somewhere (and now someone relying on that broken behavior).
