4 ms·
> since it's common to the majority of widely-used languages. I don't think so. Both C and C++ are specified in international standards. That's the gold stand
by rewmie 3y ago
> since it's common to the majority of widely-used languages.
I don't think so.
Both C and C++ are specified in international standards. That's the gold standard.
Java has very concrete versioning and specification process.
Python is also exemplary in its release and versioning process.
C# even breaks down versioning in terms of both CLR and fundamental frameworks.
Exactly which widely used language do you think is missing from that list?
- dureuill 3y agoThe person you're responding to was specifically responding to your criticism that Rust does not provide a specification that implementations can target. You're now listing languages, such as Python, that don't have a specification, so it is unclear what your criticism actually is. By python's standards, Rust is very good: a lot fewer breaking changes (changes are tested against the entire, huge, open source ecosystem to check if they are breaking, I think this level of testing is unparalleled), the release and versioning process is extremely clear (one minor release every six weeks, patch releases to address unexpected regressions + security issues), and it also have a really well specified evolution process through the RFC process.