4 ms·
I'm actually arguing the exact opposite. It's better to make changes that fix obvious issues that don't break anything in practice rather than to adhere to some
by pcwalton 10y ago
I'm actually arguing the exact opposite. It's better to make changes that fix obvious issues that don't break anything in practice rather than to adhere to some academic notion of "complete" backwards compatibility.
- tmzt 10y agoRight. By "this kind of thing" I mean code that breaks subtly like the examples in the article. I don't mean to argue with the breaking changes (versus the 1.0) in Rust which have been well thought out. Just that an accumulation of these types of changes without an errata of sorts on 1.0 Rust could lead to something like this down the road.