Then what kind of tribal language contest should it be?? On Thu, Jul 30, 2015 at 9:38 AM, Job van der Zwan <j.l.vanderz...@gmail.com> wrote:
> 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. >>> >>
