4 ms·

1.0 isn't a total freeze, just a promise not to remove base syntax or features. If you write code for 1.0 now, it'll compile on a future 1.0 release. They are s

1.0 isn't a total freeze, just a promise not to remove base syntax or features. If you write code for 1.0 now, it'll compile on a future 1.0 release. They are still planning on adding many more things, both in terms of libraries, and language features. http://blog.rust-lang.org/2014/09/15/Rust-1.0.html http://blog.rust-lang.org/2014/09/15/Rust-1.0.html The things you've mentioned as torturous are mostly sugar on-top of the already implemented primitives, and are even being worked on ([n..m] slice notation, to name one).

pron 12y ago
> If you write code for 1.0 now, it'll compile on a future 1.0 release. Almost: it will compile on all future Rust releases to the end of time (unless Rust wants to commit suicide). Languages cannot ever make breaking changes once they reach a stable version (unless they have relatively little adoption). This is even more crucial for "low level" languages like Rust, as they are often used for projects that are meant to last for decades, and are often chosen by programmers who want don't have the patience for this kind of thing.
- TheHydroImpulse 12y ago
  With proper tooling, one could automatically upgrade a 1.x Rust compatible codebase to be 2.0 compatible (if such a version ever exists in the future).
  - pron 12y ago
    AFAIK (and it would be interesting to hear of counter examples) that's never been done for a mainstream language before (of course, Rust is far from mainstream -- yet -- but if it never becomes mainstream than it can do whatever it wants, including break backwards compatibility).
- masklinn 12y ago
  > Almost: it will compile on all future Rust releases to the end of time (unless Rust wants to commit suicide). Languages cannot ever make breaking changes once they reach a stable version (unless they have relatively little adoption). Or nobody expects anything from them (see: PHP)

pron 12y ago

> If you write code for 1.0 now, it'll compile on a future 1.0 release. Almost: it will compile on all future Rust releases to the end of time (unless Rust wants to commit suicide). Languages cannot ever make breaking changes once they reach a stable version (unless they have relatively little adoption). This is even more crucial for "low level" languages like Rust, as they are often used for projects that are meant to last for decades, and are often chosen by programmers who want don't have the patience for this kind of thing.

TheHydroImpulse 12y ago
With proper tooling, one could automatically upgrade a 1.x Rust compatible codebase to be 2.0 compatible (if such a version ever exists in the future).
- pron 12y ago
  AFAIK (and it would be interesting to hear of counter examples) that's never been done for a mainstream language before (of course, Rust is far from mainstream -- yet -- but if it never becomes mainstream than it can do whatever it wants, including break backwards compatibility).
masklinn 12y ago
> Almost: it will compile on all future Rust releases to the end of time (unless Rust wants to commit suicide). Languages cannot ever make breaking changes once they reach a stable version (unless they have relatively little adoption). Or nobody expects anything from them (see: PHP)