|
|
|
|
|
by tavert
2862 days ago
|
|
Just in the last few months BinDeps was broken by a "deprecation fix" that was completely wrong and using a name that didn't exist, and it got merged and released by the patch author before anyone else could look at it, breaking many downstream packages. Refactorings and major changes in ZMQ.jl and the web stack similarly get merged and released immediately with zero review, still. This is a major problem. Features in the base language have been deleted during 0.7-DEV because a single core developer didn't like them, despite multiple other core developers voicing disagreement that the features were useful and removing them was not urgent or necessary. It's not a development culture I would rely on when products and money and jobs are at stake. Even the startup you were working with abandoned julia, correct? |
|
What I don't understand is why you didn't just stay with old stable versions? You wouldn't be exposed to such issues, wouldn't you?
> It's not a development culture I would rely on when products and money and jobs are at stake
On the other hand this 'development culture' has brought brilliant results in a relatively short amount of time with a relatively small team.
There was a talk [1] at the Juliacon 2018 where a company very successfully replaced an IBM product with Julia code. At 48:07 there was a question 'about problems with changes in Julia'. Answer: they started with v0.3 and 'didn't really have many problems'. They 'didn't use anything particularly exotic'. So, yes, I'd say if you adapt to the given situation it can (could have) work(ed).
I'm not convinced that a non-cowboy style would have been better. (And besides, this doesn't come free moneywise).
[1]: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=__gMirBBNXY