4 ms·
It doesn't have to be like this. Clojure is over 10 years old and has more or less achieved its vision of never having a breaking change in the core language. T
by lgessler 7y ago
It doesn't have to be like this. Clojure is over 10 years old and has more or less achieved its vision of never having a breaking change in the core language. This comes at a cost (many rejected proposals, very very slow acceptance of them) but it's still proof that you can avoid breaking changes if you are sufficiently cautious. (It probably also helps that Clojure has a full-fledged macro system that lets users write libraries that would have had to be compiler plugins or language proposals in other languages.)
- Sean1708 7y agoThat sounds like an example of it being exactly like this (since neither Go nor C++ have had any breaking changes either AFAIA), or am I not understanding something?
- lgessler 7y agoSorry, I didn't make the point I wanted to, which is that GP (on my reading) seems to think that breaking changes are necessary and unavoidable for the long-term health for a PL. I'm saying Clojure seems to be perfectly fine even without any breaking changes in over 10 years, and that it seems like it'll continue like this indefinitely.
- pjmlp 7y agoIts market adoption also seems to be stagnant, so.