|
|
|
|
|
|
by ChrisRackauckas
2845 days ago
|
|
|
This is clear FUD. The developers directly stated with previous releases that backwards compatibility wasn't a top priority, and things weren't backwards compatible. Now with v1.0 the statement is that the language is far enough that it is a priority. Why would past telegraphed instability be indicative of future untelegraphed instability? There have already been multiple proposals shut down due to backwards incompatibility since the v1.0 release, so developers are clearly taking it seriously given the comments in the PRs. |
|
|