3 ms·
This was very good but... "reach a point where breaking changes to the core of the language are down to a minimum" I'm very afraid of the word minimum in this
by gravypod 10y ago
This was very good but...
"reach a point where breaking changes to the core of the language are down to a minimum"
I'm very afraid of the word minimum in this context. This is why "no one was ever fired for picking Java".
- RX14 10y agoI think that's a mistake in the article, we will follow semver after 1.0.0, and we definitely don't want a 2.0.0 less than two years after 1.0.0. I'm sure crystal will provide the same stability guarantees as go and rust.
- gravypod 10y agoMy main concerns are development time and tooling. Crystal looks great and offers some great features that no other native-compiled languages really offer at this time (which is amazing) but I am the kind of person that needs first-class IDE support to take a look. I think crystal would be the perfect platform for some great software development. Aside from tooling I need a guarantee that my code, if following all of the best practices, should be compilable from now till the foreseeable future.
- spalladino2 10y agoThe idea is to avoid falling into a Python 2 vs 3 situation, by being very careful in how we break compatibility when moving to the next major.