I guess the waters are a little muddied here lately with Rust having recently put such a big emphasis on stability and reaching 1.0, actively telling people not to use the language prior to that point, and seemingly having really high expectations about how long 1.x will last for. They have a much smaller standard library than we do, but I would think trimming ours down to the bare minimum would be necessary before calling the language 1.0. Maybe that could just as well be a 2.0 or 3.0 target instead.
On Wednesday, July 29, 2015 at 9:28:56 AM UTC-7, Stefan Karpinski wrote: > > I do believe that other languages have not really followed the semantic > versioning specification (can't blame them really since it didn't exist) > and have introduced backwards incompatible changes in minor versions. If > we're going to follow semver, then we will very likely want to make major > releases more often since we will probably have some backwards incompatible > changes we want to introduce periodically, even if they're not huge. > > On Wed, Jul 29, 2015 at 12:20 PM, Tony Kelman <[email protected] > <javascript:>> wrote: > >> Actually considering that we've been more strict about version discipline >> than absolutely required by semver for 0.x.y, maybe we could pull a GCC and >> just start treating major number the way we've been treating minor. It >> might not be all that different, except we'd be able to do the "backporting >> features" thing and have a very good way of dealing with it. So I retract >> my incredulity. >> >> >> On Wednesday, July 29, 2015 at 9:10:46 AM UTC-7, Stefan Karpinski wrote: >>> >>> Doing more frequent major releases than has been traditional for >>> programming languages strikes me as not a terrible idea, honestly. >>> >>> On Tue, Jul 28, 2015 at 11:26 PM, Tony Kelman <[email protected]> wrote: >>> >>>> I'm with Kevin, having followed development (too) closely for the last >>>> year and a half I find the prospect of 1.0 any time during 2016 totally >>>> ridiculous and unrelealistic. Unless you fully anticipate releasing 2.0 >>>> some time in 2017. >>>> >>>> >>>> On Tuesday, July 28, 2015 at 6:52:36 PM UTC-7, Stefan Karpinski wrote: >>>>> >>>>> That's literally the only part of that post that I would change :-) >>>>> >>>>> But no, I'm not trolling, 1.0 should be out next year. Predicting down >>>>> to the month – or even quarter – is hard, but that's what I think we're >>>>> looking at. I'll post a 1.0 roadmap issue soon. >>>>> >>>>> On Tue, Jul 28, 2015 at 6:56 PM, Kevin Squire <[email protected]> >>>>> wrote: >>>>> >>>>>> Stefan, are you trolling again? ;-P >>>>>> >>>>>> http://julialang.org/blog/2012/02/why-we-created-julia/ >>>>>> >>>>>> On Tue, Jul 28, 2015 at 12:41 PM, Stefan Karpinski < >>>>>> [email protected]> wrote: >>>>>> >>>>>>> Version 1.0 will be released around this time next year. >>>>>>> >>>>>>> On Tue, Jul 28, 2015 at 3:27 PM, Pileas <[email protected]> >>>>>>> wrote: >>>>>>> >>>>>>>> Greetings, >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> I have been following the development of Julia for sometime now and >>>>>>>> I am really thrilled to know that you guys have reached version 0.3.11. >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> To my understanding sometime in the near future you will release >>>>>>>> the new version 0.4.0., a version that it is supposed to bring many >>>>>>>> changes. >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> My question is simple: when is Julia expected to "mature", so that >>>>>>>> a "universal" (more or less) documentation (or maybe more thorough >>>>>>>> books >>>>>>>> than those that exist by now) will follow and less bug fixed will be >>>>>>>> needed? >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> I wish you the best! >>>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>> >>> >
