[avodonosov]

That's the culture - so many people consider it ok to break backwards compatibility, although it's almost always trivial to maintain it.

[theturtletalks]

It’s hard to move fast and not break things.

[Silhouette]

If there is any time when "more haste, less speed" is appropriate, developing software is probably it.

There is no need for the library ecosystem and dependency culture around a popular programming language to be as fragile as JavaScript's. Other popular programming languages manage not to have this problem to anything like the same degree.

[quickthrower2]

I doubt it’s hard it just takes discipline. Use 0. Versions while working stuff out

[stickfigure]

If the javascript community was honest, nothing would ever graduate to 1.0.

[theturtletalks]

I think JS moves fast because of the sheer amount people that use it. Many have discipline, but countless others do not.

[pknopf]

Exactly. It's more of a problem of it's community.

I don't mean offense, but JavaScript is just so accessible and easy to get into, that's it's flooded with people who haven't had time to learn the instincts that make a senior dev a "senior". The author of seems to really "get it", as do many others.

[LoSboccacc]

yeah there's plenty libraries out there that do a great job at providing a stable API across the years. the problem is not using libraries, but it's using unproven libraries.

to an extent that's why I don't understand the jQuery hate from modern JavaScript devs, jQuery had a stable API for years both externally and internally, so that not only it easy to upgrade it but it also easy to upgrade whatever plugin you were using.

sure it's not a framework so it doesn't really reduce how much code you write, but it's a solid foundation library

[pier25]

Nobody said you should move fast, except Facebook.

[avodonosov]

Easy, just few principles. Think immutability, applied to dependencies and versioning.