I have read several times that they do not consider the language stable. Yet they repeatedly advertise it as «production-ready» [1,2], which is contradictory at best.
> the language is done, you can expect no breaking changes
Well ... I don't use Elm in production. But, I'm sure there are people out there who got gaslighted because of this ill-conceived move, and they can better explain about 'production readiness' story that was weaved around Elm.
> Hence the fact that it is v0.19
I also don't understand how can a minor version 0.18 -> 0.19 completly break backwards compatibility even if it is not stable. Well may be it's just Elm. They should have atleast thrown a `deprecated` warning and maintain backwards compatibilty till the next major version.
> Major version zero (0.y.z) is for initial development
> Anything MAY change at any time.
Thank you for clarification. So, now it begs the question how did Elm team persuaded people to try out their language in production if it is still in initial development and anything MAY change at any time ...
[1] https://discourse.elm-lang.org/t/two-experiences-with-elm/91...
[2] https://github.com/gdotdesign/elm-github-install/issues/62#i...