On Mon, Feb 11, 2013 at 4:34 PM, Gabriel Dos Reis < g...@integrable-solutions.net> wrote:
> I have some experience with GCC releases -- having served as a GCC > Release Manager for several years. In fact, the release scheme we currently > have has gone through several iterations -- usually after many > "existential" > crisis. Yes, we don't break GCC ABI lightly, mostly because GCC isn't > a research compiler and most "research works" are done on forgotten > branches > that nobody cares about anymore. Implementing new standards (e.g. moving > from C++03 to C++11 that has several mandated API and ABI breakage) is a > royal pain that isn't worth replicating in GHC -- at least if you want > GHC to remain a research compiler. > > Concerning your question about release number, I would venture that there > is a certain "marketing" aspect to it. I can tell you that we, the > GCC community, > are very poor at that -- otherwise, we would have been at version 26 > or something :-) > Thanks for sharing! My perspective is of course as a user. I don't think I've ever run into a case where the compiler broken a previous work e.g. C++ program. On the other hand I have to make a release of most of the libraries I maintain with every GHC release (to bump cabal version constraints to accept the new base version, if nothing else). -- Johan
_______________________________________________ Glasgow-haskell-users mailing list Glasgow-haskell-users@haskell.org http://www.haskell.org/mailman/listinfo/glasgow-haskell-users
