Robby Findler wrote at 09/30/2011 01:05 PM:
On Fri, Sep 30, 2011 at 12:01 PM, John Clements
<cleme...@brinckerhoff.org> wrote:
In my world, a change will fall into the "yes, racket is a rapidly changing
language" bin;
it's not unusual for much of my old code to be broken.
I realize this is a meta question, but is this the world we really
want Racket to be in?
I want it to be stable (backward-compatible changes in general).
However, I also want it to continue to innovate. I think that the
interactivity between the developers and users of the platform permits
us to have both. Sometimes, you can simply ask "hey, is it OK with
everyone if I break such-and-such slightly, requiring you to make a
small code change?", and if the answer is yes, you collectively save a
person-week of work and also avoid some legacy cruft.
On the other hand, if you want Racket to be an exercise and showcase for
perfect backward compatibility, that might be interesting. Perhaps
someone can find some novel techniques to help do that, and some way of
demonstrating the contribution (seamless backward compatibility
throughout evolution, without some cost that systems traditionally incur
to satisfy that).
--
http://www.neilvandyke.org/
_________________________________________________
For list-related administrative tasks:
http://lists.racket-lang.org/listinfo/users
