3 ms·
Problem is not semantic version but .Net platform that have multiple branches of the same thing[0]. If MS was not braindead they would promote Mono to become .N
by Chyzwar 9y ago
Problem is not semantic version but .Net platform that have multiple branches of the same thing[0]. If MS was not braindead they would promote Mono to become .Net Core instead of building a new thing.
Hickey's Clojure introduce breaking changes even in minor versions[1] how this is more sensible?.
[0]https://docs.microsoft.com/en-us/dotnet/articles/standard/library https://docs.microsoft.com/en-us/dotnet/articles/standard/li...
[1]https://github.com/clojure/clojure/blob/master/changes.md https://github.com/clojure/clojure/blob/master/changes.md
- bad_user 9y agoEven though its history isn't perfect, Clojure's changes are not breaking and it's one of those projects that sets a high bar for what backwards compatibility means. Clojure code written for 1.0 (May 2009) works just fine in Clojure 1.8 and you'd find it challenging to find an item in that linked document that actually breaks compatibility.