5 ms·

There are already a lot of programming languages that made it to x.0 without making all the breaking changes they should have, leaving warts all over the langua

There are already a lot of programming languages that made it to x.0 without making all the breaking changes they should have, leaving warts all over the language and the standard libraries. The fact that Rust is still making lots of breaking changes is good, IMO. They seem very cognizant of the fact that they should make all the breaking changes they can while they still can.

Pxtl 13y ago
Absolutely. I'd hate to see Rust go through a Python 3 debacle, or deal with the .NET approach where half the framework libs are completely superseded by new libs in every major release.
- Pacabel 13y ago
  Python 3 wasn't a "debacle" in any sense. In fact, it has proven to be an excellent approach. Users with large Python 2.x code bases haven't experienced any disruption. Users who needed Python 3's features were free to upgrade as soon as they wanted. Libraries and frameworks have gotten Python 3 support when it becomes feasible and worthwhile to do so. It may not be the fastest adoption possible, but it has been quite pain-free, and totally optional for those who have no need for it. Besides, Rust should be happy to get anywhere near the number of users that Python and .NET have. That surely won't happen until there's a version of Rust that's stable for more than a couple of months. And what makes you think that Rust still won't end up in a situation where some desired future functionality requires backward compatibility to be broken, regardless of how much effort they put in now?
  - pcwalton 13y ago
    > Python 3 wasn't a "debacle" in any sense. In fact, it has proven to be an excellent approach. That's… not an opinion shared by anyone else I've heard of. Python 3 has been a disaster, mainly because it didn't offer enough of a reason for users to upgrade. In other words, Python's so entrenched that Python 2's warts are effectively staying with the language forever. That is hurting every user of the Python language, and is actually an argument for fixing Rust's flaws now, while we still have a chance to. > Besides, Rust should be happy to get anywhere near the number of users that Python and .NET have. That surely won't happen until there's a version of Rust that's stable for more than a couple of months. We explicitly don't want so many users right now that we can't break things. That's not to say we don't want users—we do, of course—but we need them to know that the language will be unstable until 1.0. > And what makes you think that Rust still won't end up in a situation where some desired future functionality requires backward compatibility to be broken, regardless of how much effort they put in now? You're arguing that we shouldn't bother fixing anything because Rust will not be perfect. Yet in many of your other comments you criticize the Web stack for its lack of forward thinking design in many areas. Do you see the cognitive dissonance here? The time to fix things that can't be fixed later is now. Just because Rust will not be perfect at 1.0, and there will be things we wish we could have changed, doesn't mean we shouldn't do the best we can.

Pxtl 13y ago

Absolutely. I'd hate to see Rust go through a Python 3 debacle, or deal with the .NET approach where half the framework libs are completely superseded by new libs in every major release.

Pacabel 13y ago
Python 3 wasn't a "debacle" in any sense. In fact, it has proven to be an excellent approach. Users with large Python 2.x code bases haven't experienced any disruption. Users who needed Python 3's features were free to upgrade as soon as they wanted. Libraries and frameworks have gotten Python 3 support when it becomes feasible and worthwhile to do so. It may not be the fastest adoption possible, but it has been quite pain-free, and totally optional for those who have no need for it. Besides, Rust should be happy to get anywhere near the number of users that Python and .NET have. That surely won't happen until there's a version of Rust that's stable for more than a couple of months. And what makes you think that Rust still won't end up in a situation where some desired future functionality requires backward compatibility to be broken, regardless of how much effort they put in now?
- pcwalton 13y ago
  > Python 3 wasn't a "debacle" in any sense. In fact, it has proven to be an excellent approach. That's… not an opinion shared by anyone else I've heard of. Python 3 has been a disaster, mainly because it didn't offer enough of a reason for users to upgrade. In other words, Python's so entrenched that Python 2's warts are effectively staying with the language forever. That is hurting every user of the Python language, and is actually an argument for fixing Rust's flaws now, while we still have a chance to. > Besides, Rust should be happy to get anywhere near the number of users that Python and .NET have. That surely won't happen until there's a version of Rust that's stable for more than a couple of months. We explicitly don't want so many users right now that we can't break things. That's not to say we don't want users—we do, of course—but we need them to know that the language will be unstable until 1.0. > And what makes you think that Rust still won't end up in a situation where some desired future functionality requires backward compatibility to be broken, regardless of how much effort they put in now? You're arguing that we shouldn't bother fixing anything because Rust will not be perfect. Yet in many of your other comments you criticize the Web stack for its lack of forward thinking design in many areas. Do you see the cognitive dissonance here? The time to fix things that can't be fixed later is now. Just because Rust will not be perfect at 1.0, and there will be things we wish we could have changed, doesn't mean we shouldn't do the best we can.