3 ms·
Isn't vale basically still in the R&D phase? That's how it has felt, certainly. I would expect specific commits on specific branches to work and that's it - no
by insanitybit 3y ago
Isn't vale basically still in the R&D phase? That's how it has felt, certainly. I would expect specific commits on specific branches to work and that's it - no that they have a compiler that arbitrary people can use to start building things.
Then again, their README doesn't really indiciate this and does say "Try Vale" so idk. But it seems very R&D/POC at this point.
- aktuel 3y agoFrom the home page: "Vale is currently in alpha!" (https://vale.dev/ https://vale.dev/)
- msla 3y agoBut that doesn't distinguish between "VC Alpha", which means early access, and "Programmer Alpha", which means basic functionality doesn't work. (The inverse is "VC 1.0", which means pre-release but we had to meet a deadline, and "Programmer 1.0", which means it's the first stable version.)
- flohofwoe 3y ago> "Programmer 1.0", which means it's the first stable version I thought "Programmer 1.0" is more like +Infinity and never ever reached? ;)
- eindiran 3y agoI don't understand, what set of programmers never (do/want to?) to reach 1.0? Are you referencing something like the Tex versioning scheme? Conventionally 1.0 is just the inflection point where things are featureful and stable enough that you start making guarantees about the stability of whatever interface/contract/API/whatever that matter to the consumer of whatever you are building.
- flohofwoe 3y agoAt least in the past a lot of useful (and actually 'finished') tools were forever at a some 0.x version, especially before semantic versioning got popular. I guess they just wanted some increasing version number but just '1, 2, 3, 4, 5, ...' looked too weird, so they went for '0.1, 0.2, 0.3, ...'.
- Tozen 3y agoAs far as it can be ascertained, Vale has been in development for at least 3 years (2020).
- deleted 3y ago[deleted]