3 ms·

> The fact that, as i mentioned, it is just a package manager. And a bad one. If you don’t mind me asking again, why is it bad? Because the rest of your post c

> The fact that, as i mentioned, it is just a package manager. And a bad one. If you don’t mind me asking again, why is it bad? Because the rest of your post certainly doesn’t answer that question. I understood that you don’t personally like that libraries change. Unfortunately, they most definitely do and no, preventing everyone on earth from ever releasing an incompatible library is not a realistic solution. > I just fucking hate the "ohh, you just don't like change" people. Well, you definitely are complaining about change a lot in a very impassioned way.

joconde 5y ago
>> I just fucking hate the "ohh, you just don't like change" people. > Well, you definitely are complaining about change a lot in a very impassioned way. They are complaining about people who assumed an irrational reason for their opposition to something, while they have a rational one. I find that kind of assumption condescending ("let me, the rational one, explain to you how to get rid of your insecurities so you can appreciate how right I am") and kind of infuriating too. > I understood that you don’t personally like that libraries change. If you add breaking changes without maintaining the backward-compatible version for a reasonable amount of time, I'd argue your library isn't fit to be a dependency for anything important. I definitely wouldn't use it. The Python package ecosystem may be a mess, but I still manage to use dozens of shared packages daily with quite rare breaking changes, even in libraries that see a lot of developments. I would prefer that we focus on improving API stability for shared libraries, instead of giving up and duplicating dependencies everywhere.