4 ms·

> All 2.12.x releases will be fully binary compatible with 2.12.0 That's the scary bit of detail about Scala releases, so far - I find that an upgrade of the c

• jvican 9y ago
  What do you mean? That you depend on other dependent projects releasing versions compatible with 2.12? Isn't this reasonable?
  • stephen123 9y ago
    It seems fine to me. And sbt has made cross compiling so easy. A library author can easily support many scala versions.
  • ajnin 9y ago
    Not really, if a library is stable and doesn't need any change it's likely that the developer will not bother to recompile it, or even will abandon it, making it unusable (unless you compile a new version yourself). You also need that all your dependencies are updated before you can upgrade yourself. I haven't touched Scala in a while so I don't know if it is still the case but it seems like a serious problem, in the long run it will be the cause of many lost libraries. In Java you can use an old dusty library from 15 years ago without a problem.
    • Cyph0n 9y ago
      I still disagree in this specific case. 2.12 was a major release; even a semi-active developer would recompile. If a dependency did break, then sbt just helped you avoid using an unmaintained library.