3 ms·

Thank you for the heads-up! I missed Reddit's thread as I usually visit social networks only the weekends. I've bookmarked the page and will for sure read all

Thank you for the heads-up! I missed Reddit's thread as I usually visit social networks only the weekends. I've bookmarked the page and will for sure read all the comments this weekend, they look very interesting (especially yours, that I've flew over)! That being said, I stand by my point: Short release cycles are an illustration of The Compound Effect. > A programming language is a platform. You can't build a thriving ecosystem on top of an unstable platform. We need, as a community, to find a solution to bring calm and focus to Rust, and then we will be able to stabilize and build a great ecosystem of libraries on top of that platform. > Short release cycles are suitable for products, as you can remove features or UI elements, and thus complexity can decrease over time. But for platforms, it means that you can only add things, as removing parts of a platform will break backward compatibility. Thus complexity may only increase over time. I would love to see almost "empty releases" in order not to add non-essential features and thus avoid feature bloat. But then, what is the point of short release cycles if it's not to add features? Wouldn't longer releases cycles make more sense?

ChrisSD 6y ago
Most Rust releases are almost empty. The ones that add something like async are exceedingly rare. Maybe once in a few years? And what would be the point of sitting on small, well tested, changes for six months or a year? What if it's two or three years before the next major feature is ready for stable? Do we have to hold back all the small improvements too? For example, making a function const allows it to be used in more places. This can be a big benefit for users. It doesn't help anyone to delay that once it has been decided it is const.

3 ms·

Thank you for the heads-up! I missed Reddit's thread as I usually visit social networks only the weekends. I've bookmarked the page and will for sure read all

by sylvain_kerkour 6y ago

ChrisSD 6y ago
Most Rust releases are almost empty. The ones that add something like async are exceedingly rare. Maybe once in a few years? And what would be the point of sitting on small, well tested, changes for six months or a year? What if it's two or three years before the next major feature is ready for stable? Do we have to hold back all the small improvements too? For example, making a function const allows it to be used in more places. This can be a big benefit for users. It doesn't help anyone to delay that once it has been decided it is const.