| > His request to support all the abominations that you have ever written and keep them compatible with recent changes, might work if you have people pay for using your library and a company behind it. But doesn't fly if you maintain these things out of goodwill in your anyhow limited spare time. It might actually be less effort to follow his method. You may need to create a new namespace or create a new function, but then you don't need to put out breaking change notices, handle user issues due to breaking changes, etc. > "Man browsers are so reliable and bug free and it's great that the new standards like flexbox get widespread adoption quickly, but I just wish the website I made for my dog in 1992 was supported better." -no one ever. It's not about better support for your 1992 website, it's about it still being accessible at all. Perhaps you've never had to deal with a file in a legacy format (ahem, Word) that had value to you, but was unrecognized in newer versions of software, but I can assure you that it's thoroughly frustrating. > Also even though I'm a fulltime Clojure dev, I would take Elms semantic versioning that is guaranteed through static type analysis anytime over spec's "we probably grew it in a consistent way" handwaving. An Elm function `foo :: int -> int` that used to increment and now acts as the identity function is merely statically-typed "we probably grew it in a consistent way" hand-waving, which may be worse than the alternative given the amount of trust people put into types. |