4 ms·

> Rich believes software tools should almost never deprecate features This is pretty severely mis-stated He believes the core of a dynamic programming languag

> Rich believes software tools should almost never deprecate features This is pretty severely mis-stated He believes the core of a dynamic programming language (specifically the core) has a very high bar for stability in order to avoid a number of problems that other dynamic languages have. This intersects with a number of other ideas, for example Lisp macros can extend syntax from a library and thus keep the change-restricted surface area small since almost anything can be implemented in a library. I think, don't recall a smoking gun quote for this, correct me if I'm wrong.

drcode 7y ago
Have you watched his "spec-ulation" talk? It makes a very strong case against EVER removing a feature from an API. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=oyLBGkS5ICk https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=oyLBGkS5ICk
jdminhbg 7y ago
If you check his remarks from Spec-ulation (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=oyLBGkS5ICk https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=oyLBGkS5ICk), he also thinks just plain old libraries should not remove or change functionality, but only accrete. If you want to make a breaking change, you should change the name of the library. You can see this philosophy in practice with clojure.spec.alpha-2: https://github.com/clojure/spec-alpha2 https://github.com/clojure/spec-alpha2
- gowld 7y ago
  That's SemVer with the version in the name.