4 ms·
> You think Rust code will change, such that... it will not be understandable? Its not about whether it is understandable or not -- it is NEW FEATURES!
by masfoobar 2y ago
> You think Rust code will change, such that... it will not be understandable?
Its not about whether it is understandable or not -- it is NEW FEATURES!
- mustache_kimono 2y ago> Its not about whether it is understandable or not -- it is NEW FEATURES! I guess I still don't understand. Your concern is new features will do what exactly to old Rust code?
- steveklabnik 2y agoI have found that there are two different ways people think about the word stability: 1. A toolchain is stable if new toolchains can still work with older code written for a previous version of the toolchain. 2. A toolchain is stable if there is a slow rate of change in the toolchain. It would seem your parent is either in camp #2 or closer to #2 than #1.
- whytevuhuni 2y agoThere is also: 3. A toolchain is stable if it has LTS releases and bugfixes are backported to them, regardless of how many changes each non-LTS release brings. But I'm not sure if people think about stability like that often. I wish they did.
- mustache_kimono 2y agoSteve, as always, very wise. Of course, it wasn't sensible, but it felt like my burden to say something when the reasoning was "But MORE features! Can't you see MORE is MORE?!" Perhaps because it reminded me of Drew Devault's mind-numbing "Rust is not a good C replacement". My more detailed thoughts on which are here: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=41409049 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=41409049