[WastingMyTime89]

> The fact that, as i mentioned, it is just a package manager. And a bad one.

If you don’t mind me asking again, why is it bad? Because the rest of your post certainly doesn’t answer that question.

I understood that you don’t personally like that libraries change. Unfortunately, they most definitely do and no, preventing everyone on earth from ever releasing an incompatible library is not a realistic solution.

> I just fucking hate the "ohh, you just don't like change" people.

Well, you definitely are complaining about change a lot in a very impassioned way.

[joconde]

>> I just fucking hate the "ohh, you just don't like change" people.

> Well, you definitely are complaining about change a lot in a very impassioned way.

They are complaining about people who assumed an irrational reason for their opposition to something, while they have a rational one. I find that kind of assumption condescending ("let me, the rational one, explain to you how to get rid of your insecurities so you can appreciate how right I am") and kind of infuriating too.

> I understood that you don’t personally like that libraries change.

If you add breaking changes without maintaining the backward-compatible version for a reasonable amount of time, I'd argue your library isn't fit to be a dependency for anything important. I definitely wouldn't use it.

The Python package ecosystem may be a mess, but I still manage to use dozens of shared packages daily with quite rare breaking changes, even in libraries that see a lot of developments. I would prefer that we focus on improving API stability for shared libraries, instead of giving up and duplicating dependencies everywhere.