3 ms·
This is an odd take that I feel is rooted in a misunderstanding. rust intentionally has a fairly rapid release schedule, so that you don't end up with a big re
by dagmx 4y ago
This is an odd take that I feel is rooted in a misunderstanding.
rust intentionally has a fairly rapid release schedule, so that you don't end up with a big release every year that introduces several possibly breaking changes.
Features aren't randomly scheduled for each release. Instead each release is a snapshot of what's been stabilized by that point.
If you prefer some arbitrary concept of stability, then you can quite easily lock to any version of rust this far and ignore any new versions till something catches your fancy.
- superkuh 4y agoThis is the perspective of a developer. I am trying to explain the perspective of an open source desktop user who's ran into the backwards incompatibility in 4 out of 5 rust tools I've attempted to compile for use. The Rust language is fine. Great, even. Most Rust devs are bleeding edge types that always use the latest features. Hopefully this changes as Rust matures.
- dagmx 4y agoThe rust compiler rarely breaks backwards compatibility, so I'd be curious to see what issues you actually hit. Perhaps you mean forwards compatibility, in which case yes perhaps that's an issue but I'm not sure why you'd want bigger, slower release cadence when it would likely make your problem worse , when libs update but updating your compiler potentially causes significant other changes as is the case with C++ for example
- tialaramex 4y agoI feel like the set of people who * Want to compile the software, not just install a pre-built binary * But, don't want to actually hack on the software and so don't care about up-to-date tools ... is probably rather small. Even for them, though, surely just an old source version will work? Or is there some reason that doesn't help?