On Wednesday, 29 July 2015 19:00:38 UTC+2, Tony Kelman wrote: > > 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. >
Go did the same before. I think it's because both position themselves as systems languages (with slightly different - but both valid - definitions of "systems"). I don't think the need for stability is quite as important for Julia - library maintainers still care of course, but there's not as much infrastructure built on top of Julia that depends on guaranteed stability.
