4 ms·

I feel like they are talking past each other, or at least talking about different things. Hickey seems to be talking about breaking the compiler. That is, he i

by Gunax 3y ago

I feel like they are talking past each other, or at least talking about different things. Hickey seems to be talking about breaking the compiler. That is, he is saying that changing the return signature from null|int to int should not break the compilation. In effect, this would create a warning a la 'You are checking for null, but var x cannot be null'. The author seems to be talking about breaking changes in the behaviour/operation sense. Those are different types of breaking.

scubbo 3y ago
But there _is_ no "breaking" change in the behaviour, because none of the previously-possible behaviours _can_ break. For every way-of-calling the function that previously existed, those ways-of-calling will continue to operate as before. Some new ways-of-calling will now be legal, but that is not a breakage, because no code that already existed could have been using those ways before, and so no code exists that can be broken. Clients _may_ choose to write new code to take advantage of the new behaviour - but there is nothing that they _must_ do (unlike with a breaking change, where they _must_ take action). It's for the purposes of this categorization, for communicating about client's responsibilities, that the concept of breaking changes is valuable.
- anonymouskimmer 3y ago
  Hijacking this to respond to a reply you made 40 days ago to a comment I made 45 days ago: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=36335405 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=36335405 > But that doesn't seem to be what you were, or are, saying. If you issue is specifically with "an epicurean theme park of enlightenment and joy to span the stars", and not with the dramatized reaction to (against) it, then...I must say I still don't understand what the problem is. An experience which is _definitionally_ pleasant, fulfilling, and non-harmful (to self or others) is....well, it's capital-g Good, no? Technological advance is fine on its own. The risk with "an epicurean theme park of enlightenment and joy to span the stars" is our own mental faculties, presuming no one is left behind. A variety of examples of this turning bad exist in fiction, a particularly pertinent one to me is Asimov's "The End of Eternity", and another one is the post-immortality centuries of Niven's "Known Space", but there are many others. Psychologically theme parks are meant to be visited for a break. If we spend our entire lives in them it does stuff to our capacities. In everyday life animal species spend most of their problem solving effort on dealing with other members of their species (and some similar species). We are our own greatest competitors. In part, I think animals do this because members of each species are approximately on equal footing, so our individual problem solving is sufficient to deal with other individuals, and our group problem solving sufficient to deal with other groups of us. But nature itself, and the universe itself, is the biggest player. The biggest risk. I fear that themepark life, as opposed to themepark visit, will either spark ennui and a bunch of interpersonal shenanigans, or will invite people to forget that we're just living in a fragile bubble. If the opportunities are not equal for every person, the situation is even worse. And I like to think that we have a responsibility to our co-inhabitants in the universe, the other species. A themepark life ultimately risks navel-gazing (at the individual or group level) and ignoring these responsibilities as well. No thank you. I want a nice life, and a nice place to live it. But I don't want ennui. I don't want self-involved navel-gazing. I want people paying attention to the real issues in the universe. We spend enough effort already on dealing with other humans. > What is it about the real world that is more important, inherently, than "the experiences that arise from living in it"? If a "better" (I'm hand-waving the complexity of comparison, because it's assumed as part of the discussion) set of experiences can arise - with perfect certainty, no trade-offs, no utilitarian cheats, just "everything is better for everyone" - then, as the other commenter said, it would be abhorrent to deny it 'because of some philosophical quibble about a difference between “simulation” vs “reality”'. Sure. I agree. As long as we take pains to address the inevitable externalities before they impact others (including other species) this is fine. But make sure you know what's "better" for everyone before it is implemented. It's not obvious that even a god could manage this, much less humans (or even the humans/angels/demons of The Good Place). "What is it about the real world that is more important, inherently" - It's everything, and we're just a part of it. "importance" is a value judgement, so is inextricably caught up in the individual so judging, but subtract out the value judgement and it's obvious that a human and a squirrel are more "important" than a single human. Now expand this to the "real world" entire.

by Gunax 3y ago

scubbo 3y ago

But there _is_ no "breaking" change in the behaviour, because none of the previously-possible behaviours _can_ break. For every way-of-calling the function that previously existed, those ways-of-calling will continue to operate as before. Some new ways-of-calling will now be legal, but that is not a breakage, because no code that already existed could have been using those ways before, and so no code exists that can be broken. Clients _may_ choose to write new code to take advantage of the new behaviour - but there is nothing that they _must_ do (unlike with a breaking change, where they _must_ take action). It's for the purposes of this categorization, for communicating about client's responsibilities, that the concept of breaking changes is valuable.

anonymouskimmer 3y ago
Hijacking this to respond to a reply you made 40 days ago to a comment I made 45 days ago: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=36335405 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=36335405 > But that doesn't seem to be what you were, or are, saying. If you issue is specifically with "an epicurean theme park of enlightenment and joy to span the stars", and not with the dramatized reaction to (against) it, then...I must say I still don't understand what the problem is. An experience which is _definitionally_ pleasant, fulfilling, and non-harmful (to self or others) is....well, it's capital-g Good, no? Technological advance is fine on its own. The risk with "an epicurean theme park of enlightenment and joy to span the stars" is our own mental faculties, presuming no one is left behind. A variety of examples of this turning bad exist in fiction, a particularly pertinent one to me is Asimov's "The End of Eternity", and another one is the post-immortality centuries of Niven's "Known Space", but there are many others. Psychologically theme parks are meant to be visited for a break. If we spend our entire lives in them it does stuff to our capacities. In everyday life animal species spend most of their problem solving effort on dealing with other members of their species (and some similar species). We are our own greatest competitors. In part, I think animals do this because members of each species are approximately on equal footing, so our individual problem solving is sufficient to deal with other individuals, and our group problem solving sufficient to deal with other groups of us. But nature itself, and the universe itself, is the biggest player. The biggest risk. I fear that themepark life, as opposed to themepark visit, will either spark ennui and a bunch of interpersonal shenanigans, or will invite people to forget that we're just living in a fragile bubble. If the opportunities are not equal for every person, the situation is even worse. And I like to think that we have a responsibility to our co-inhabitants in the universe, the other species. A themepark life ultimately risks navel-gazing (at the individual or group level) and ignoring these responsibilities as well. No thank you. I want a nice life, and a nice place to live it. But I don't want ennui. I don't want self-involved navel-gazing. I want people paying attention to the real issues in the universe. We spend enough effort already on dealing with other humans. > What is it about the real world that is more important, inherently, than "the experiences that arise from living in it"? If a "better" (I'm hand-waving the complexity of comparison, because it's assumed as part of the discussion) set of experiences can arise - with perfect certainty, no trade-offs, no utilitarian cheats, just "everything is better for everyone" - then, as the other commenter said, it would be abhorrent to deny it 'because of some philosophical quibble about a difference between “simulation” vs “reality”'. Sure. I agree. As long as we take pains to address the inevitable externalities before they impact others (including other species) this is fine. But make sure you know what's "better" for everyone before it is implemented. It's not obvious that even a god could manage this, much less humans (or even the humans/angels/demons of The Good Place). "What is it about the real world that is more important, inherently" - It's everything, and we're just a part of it. "importance" is a value judgement, so is inextricably caught up in the individual so judging, but subtract out the value judgement and it's obvious that a human and a squirrel are more "important" than a single human. Now expand this to the "real world" entire.