Clojure 1.10 release
clojure.org
Clojure 1.10 release
1–10 of 97 posts
Re: Clojure 1.10 release
#2I'm so excited about all the error messages work on this release! Also, the new metadata and tap functionality creates so many possibilities. And Java 8 minimum guaranteed so we can build things on top of java's time libraries and trust they will be there.
Nice work everyone!
Re: Clojure 1.10 release
#3From the perspective of a (fairly large-scale at this point) app developer: I find it great that Clojure places such emphasis on backwards compatibility. In general, migration to newer Clojure versions is completely painless.
The language has been designed by experienced and mature people and doesn't go through "let's throw everything out and start again" phases like so many other languages do.
Re: Clojure 1.10 release
#4Woohoo?
Re: Clojure 1.10 release
#5From the perspective of a (fairly large-scale at this point) app developer: I find it great that Clojure places such emphasis on backwards compatibility. In general, migration to newer Clojure versions is completely painless. The language has been designed by experienced and mature people and doesn't go through "let's throw everything out and start again" phases like so many other languages do.
I was a bit sad that the changelog was so small. Then I realized that maybe core features were stable and that's it, what was needed wasn't big beside spec and a few other things.
Re: Clojure 1.10 release
#6From the perspective of a (fairly large-scale at this point) app developer: I find it great that Clojure places such emphasis on backwards compatibility. In general, migration to newer Clojure versions is completely painless. The language has been designed by experienced and mature people and doesn't go through "let's throw everything out and start again" phases like so many other languages do.
> The language has been designed by experienced and mature people and doesn't go through "let's throw everything out and start again" phases like so many other languages do.
Swift was designed by highly experienced and mature compiler devs and is notorious for making breaking changes. It's just a difference of opinion. I prefer to suffer the occasional upgrade pain in exchange for clean and consistent APIs. And I totally understand those who don't want to deal with that.
Although to be fair to them, Swift is much younger than Clojure and the number of breaking changes has steadily declined with each major release. In seven years maybe they will take the backwards compatible approach too.
Re: Clojure 1.10 release
#7From the perspective of a (fairly large-scale at this point) app developer: I find it great that Clojure places such emphasis on backwards compatibility. In general, migration to newer Clojure versions is completely painless. The language has been designed by experienced and mature people and doesn't go through "let's throw everything out and start again" phases like so many other languages do.
Clojure's emphasis on backwards compatibility is commendable, but keep in mind Clojure is still a very young language ( only about 10 years old ) so there isn't much backwards compatibility to worry about.
Re: Clojure 1.10 release
#8From the perspective of a (fairly large-scale at this point) app developer: I find it great that Clojure places such emphasis on backwards compatibility. In general, migration to newer Clojure versions is completely painless. The language has been designed by experienced and mature people and doesn't go through "let's throw everything out and start again" phases like so many other languages do.
> The language has been designed by experienced and mature people and doesn't go through "let's throw everything out and start again" phases like so many other languages do. Swift was designed by highly experienced and mature compiler devs and is notorious for making breaking changes. It's just a difference of opinion. I prefer to suffer the occasional upgrade pain in exchange for clean and consistent APIs. And I tot…
I'm in the same boat; I work for a company that's been around for awhile, and as a result they've accrued a lot of Java code, a lot of it using deprecated APIs. It's quite frustrating to dig through them, and I would have been happier if Oracle had just phased out a lot of these things from the compiler (though my understanding is that JDK11 is making steps for that).
Re: Clojure 1.10 release
#9From the perspective of a (fairly large-scale at this point) app developer: I find it great that Clojure places such emphasis on backwards compatibility. In general, migration to newer Clojure versions is completely painless. The language has been designed by experienced and mature people and doesn't go through "let's throw everything out and start again" phases like so many other languages do.
I was a bit sad that the changelog was so small. Then I realized that maybe core features were stable and that's it, what was needed wasn't big beside spec and a few other things.
A lot of the year's effort went into things outside core - 2 releases of spec, 2 releases of core.specs, many releases of tools.deps.alpha / clj, tools.gitlibs, new release of REBL, etc. Lots of small fixes and enhancements in core too.
Re: Clojure 1.10 release
#10From the perspective of a (fairly large-scale at this point) app developer: I find it great that Clojure places such emphasis on backwards compatibility. In general, migration to newer Clojure versions is completely painless. The language has been designed by experienced and mature people and doesn't go through "let's throw everything out and start again" phases like so many other languages do.
> The language has been designed by experienced and mature people and doesn't go through "let's throw everything out and start again" phases like so many other languages do. Swift was designed by highly experienced and mature compiler devs and is notorious for making breaking changes. It's just a difference of opinion. I prefer to suffer the occasional upgrade pain in exchange for clean and consistent APIs. And I tot…
> Swift was designed by highly experienced and mature compiler devs
"Compiler devs". I think that is exactly my point. I should have said "app developers" or "system designers". If you listen to a Rich Hickey talk, you'll see that he is all about Getting Things Done in the real world, and much less about theoretical concepts. Language design is subservient to app developer needs.