Let's not turn this into a tribal language pissing contest, please.
On Thursday, 30 July 2015 15:15:42 UTC+2, Tony Kelman wrote: > > Hah. Go's definition of "systems" is totally invalid everywhere in the > world except inside Google. > > We also have nicer syntax macros than either of those languages. Compat > might start getting pretty ungainly over time, but we can use REQUIRE to > deal with that if the version range ever gets too intractable to support > everything within the same set of macros. > > > On Thursday, July 30, 2015 at 6:08:54 AM UTC-7, Job van der Zwan wrote: >> >> 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. >> >
