4 ms·

I've personally never seem them say "the language is done, you can expect no breaking changes". Hence the fact that it is v0.19

ziotom78 6y ago
I have read several times that they do not consider the language stable. Yet they repeatedly advertise it as «production-ready» [1,2], which is contradictory at best. [1] https://discourse.elm-lang.org/t/two-experiences-with-elm/919/4 https://discourse.elm-lang.org/t/two-experiences-with-elm/91... [2] https://github.com/gdotdesign/elm-github-install/issues/62#issuecomment-418427960 https://github.com/gdotdesign/elm-github-install/issues/62#i...
palerdot 6y ago
> the language is done, you can expect no breaking changes Well ... I don't use Elm in production. But, I'm sure there are people out there who got gaslighted because of this ill-conceived move, and they can better explain about 'production readiness' story that was weaved around Elm. > Hence the fact that it is v0.19 I also don't understand how can a minor version 0.18 -> 0.19 completly break backwards compatibility even if it is not stable. Well may be it's just Elm. They should have atleast thrown a `deprecated` warning and maintain backwards compatibilty till the next major version.
- yhoiseth 6y ago
  It's in line with semantic versioning, point 4 [1]: > Major version zero (0.y.z) is for initial development. Anything MAY change at any time. The public API SHOULD NOT be considered stable. 1. https://semver.org/#semantic-versioning-specification-semver https://semver.org/#semantic-versioning-specification-semver
  - palerdot 6y ago
    > Major version zero (0.y.z) is for initial development > Anything MAY change at any time. Thank you for clarification. So, now it begs the question how did Elm team persuaded people to try out their language in production if it is still in initial development and anything MAY change at any time ...

ziotom78 6y ago

I have read several times that they do not consider the language stable. Yet they repeatedly advertise it as «production-ready» [1,2], which is contradictory at best. [1] https://discourse.elm-lang.org/t/two-experiences-with-elm/919/4 https://discourse.elm-lang.org/t/two-experiences-with-elm/91... [2] https://github.com/gdotdesign/elm-github-install/issues/62#issuecomment-418427960 https://github.com/gdotdesign/elm-github-install/issues/62#i...

palerdot 6y ago

> the language is done, you can expect no breaking changes Well ... I don't use Elm in production. But, I'm sure there are people out there who got gaslighted because of this ill-conceived move, and they can better explain about 'production readiness' story that was weaved around Elm. > Hence the fact that it is v0.19 I also don't understand how can a minor version 0.18 -> 0.19 completly break backwards compatibility even if it is not stable. Well may be it's just Elm. They should have atleast thrown a `deprecated` warning and maintain backwards compatibilty till the next major version.

yhoiseth 6y ago
It's in line with semantic versioning, point 4 [1]: > Major version zero (0.y.z) is for initial development. Anything MAY change at any time. The public API SHOULD NOT be considered stable. 1. https://semver.org/#semantic-versioning-specification-semver https://semver.org/#semantic-versioning-specification-semver
- palerdot 6y ago
  > Major version zero (0.y.z) is for initial development > Anything MAY change at any time. Thank you for clarification. So, now it begs the question how did Elm team persuaded people to try out their language in production if it is still in initial development and anything MAY change at any time ...