> > > my view of Java's backward compatibility is that it is kind of a bunch > of hot air that restricts the ecosystem from being better. i vastly > prefer the fact that .net is willing to make real changes to get real > benefits. > > sincerely. > $0.02 >
And that requires shoe-horning new stuff in the old framework like using that $ convention for inner classes for instance, I agree. I did not suggest the language and API should not change and remain forever compatible, only that if possible, instead of doing something like this: (if (> *clojure-version* 1.0) (do-something) (do-something-else)) I could do something like: (ns my-namespace (:clojure-version "1.0")) and expect clojure to reroute through the old code and the old api. Clojure would stay free to evolve. The question is whether or not the cost of maintaining the plumbings to require old APIs is worth the cost. I am not really apt to judge what it involves so I'll wait for others to enlighten me. If it's not worth the cost, I'd be happy with a "works-perfectly, warns, gone" deprecation policy. --~--~---------~--~----~------------~-------~--~----~ You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Clojure" group. To post to this group, send email to clojure@googlegroups.com To unsubscribe from this group, send email to clojure+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/clojure?hl=en -~----------~----~----~----~------~----~------~--~---
