On Wed, Feb 23, 2011 at 9:23 PM, Brian Marick <mar...@exampler.com> wrote: > > On Feb 23, 2011, at 3:06 PM, David Jacobs wrote: > >> Thanks for the suggestions. I should say that I was only giving you my >> impression of using Clojure re: it's version number. I'm not saying any of >> the things I listed are not doable, just that they feel very ad-hoc and not >> quite ready for a "2.0". > > I agree. My gut tells me "2.0" implies promises about the ecosystem and > ease-of-adoption. Clojure 2.0 would be overpromising. Better to underpromise > and overdeliver, as they say.
But "1.3" may overpromise and underdeliver backward compatibility. How do you suggest we resolve this dilemma? -- 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 Note that posts from new members are moderated - please be patient with your first post. 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
