On 07.12.2011 13:33, Dmitriy Sintsov wrote: > * Trevor Parscal<[email protected]> [Tue, 6 Dec 2011 17:21:43 > -0800]: >> The hype of "2.0" aside, is there a guideline for what should > constitute >> a >> major version number change? >> >> It looks like we are doing something like: Major.Minor.Release >> >> 1.18 = Major: 1, Minor: 18, (alpha|beta|etc.) >> >> I'm just curious what people think would constitue a major version. >> We've >> certainly had major rewrites of systems in the past that didn't seem > to >> justify a version bump. Is there anything wrong with having version >> 1.249? >> Is there a practical reason for bumping the version at some point > (like >> when the minor version hits tripple digits)? >> >> Also, a rewrite of MediaWiki should for sure be done in Node.js :) >> >> - Trevor >> > Is Javascript really that good? Some people dislike prototypical > inheritance, it seems that jQuery prefers to use wrappers instead > (that's a kind of suboptimal architecture). Also, Google had some > complains about Javascript flaws (for example primitive types don't > allow high performance available in Java / C#), suggesting to replace it > with something else.. Although having common clientside / serverside > codebase is nice thing, for sure. And there's nothing more widespread > than Javascript at client side. Also, it's object side is strong > (something like Lisp with C-syntax), however it does not have generics, > named parameters etc.. > Dmitriy > > A small correction: functional side, not object side. Dmitriy
_______________________________________________ Wikitech-l mailing list [email protected] https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikitech-l
