4 ms·

Yep, they stated version 1.0 will be the one where they stabilized. Likewise Rust is like this for the language. Their standard library iirc were still develop

Yep, they stated version 1.0 will be the one where they stabilized. Likewise Rust is like this for the language. Their standard library iirc were still developing? So it suck in term of wanting something stable but at the same time they need people using their language. I think the upside is there are tons of stuff you can contributes including the small stuff.

rspeer 9y ago
No, Rust went 1.0 a while ago. They will not make breaking changes to the language until a hypothetical 2.0 release, which at the moment they are not considering. Of course the standard library changes; it's not a dead language. New features, including new functions in the standard library, are marked 'unstable' when they are introduced. Unstable features have to be explicitly requested, indicating that the programmer is aware that their functionality may change before they're stabilized.
- steveklabnik 9y ago
  There is an important point here, which is that even if you've been stable for a while (two years for Rust) and even if you try to get that message out (some people on HN think there are too many posts about Rust), it can take a very long time for broad perception to catch up with reality. That's not a value judgement on those who didn't know; cache invalidation is a hard problem. But it's an interesting facet of languages that plays out in a number of ways. See the link to Dan Luu's post from forever ago, posted numerous times in this thread as another example.
- notthemessiah 9y ago
  I'm not sure if Rust is a proper comparison, as the standard library for a language for scientific and technical computing is much larger than a language for systems programming: you want a vast vocabulary to deal with matrices as opposed to a minimalist set of orthogonal features for systems programming. Another consideration: with Julia, it aims to be both a full-featured programming language (with a type system and support for metaprogramming for library developers), as well as approachable enough for a scientist to pick up.

rspeer 9y ago

No, Rust went 1.0 a while ago. They will not make breaking changes to the language until a hypothetical 2.0 release, which at the moment they are not considering. Of course the standard library changes; it's not a dead language. New features, including new functions in the standard library, are marked 'unstable' when they are introduced. Unstable features have to be explicitly requested, indicating that the programmer is aware that their functionality may change before they're stabilized.

steveklabnik 9y ago
There is an important point here, which is that even if you've been stable for a while (two years for Rust) and even if you try to get that message out (some people on HN think there are too many posts about Rust), it can take a very long time for broad perception to catch up with reality. That's not a value judgement on those who didn't know; cache invalidation is a hard problem. But it's an interesting facet of languages that plays out in a number of ways. See the link to Dan Luu's post from forever ago, posted numerous times in this thread as another example.
notthemessiah 9y ago
I'm not sure if Rust is a proper comparison, as the standard library for a language for scientific and technical computing is much larger than a language for systems programming: you want a vast vocabulary to deal with matrices as opposed to a minimalist set of orthogonal features for systems programming. Another consideration: with Julia, it aims to be both a full-featured programming language (with a type system and support for metaprogramming for library developers), as well as approachable enough for a scientist to pick up.