[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next]
- Subject: Re: Lua 5.2 Wish list item: stable API between versions
- From: Mike Kreuzer <mike@...>
- Date: Wed, 15 Nov 2006 16:10:57 +1100
David Haley wrote:
On this day of 11/14/2006 05:05 PM, Mike Kreuzer saw fit to scribe:
Glenn Maynard wrote:
I don't want a Lua where luaL_checkudata has to always return
NULL for backwards compatibility, even though the rest of the
check* functions throw errors. I want a Lua that's consistent
today, even if it means more work to upgrade. I don't want these
deprecated functions and features to stick around in the code and
headers and documentation forever; I want them to go away.
I don't want Lua's evolution stunted by backwards compatibility.
Stuck. Bloat. Stunted. ROTFL, tell me what you really think. :-)
I think that Glenn was using those terms to describe what he feels
would happen with a completely backwards compatible API: 1-
everything would get stuck in the API forever
2- the result of things being stuck forever is bloat
3- since compatibility cannot be broken, new features are stunted
because they must be designed around old features that we might all
agree are no longer good
I'm not sure what's inconsistent about this view, and certainly not
what's funny. Personally I would tend to agree with Glenn's post.
That language is hilarious. To me, obviously not to you.
Now, nowhere did I say that his view -- that maintaining compatibility
would lead to a slow down in change -- was inconsistent, because that's
perfectly consistent, and indeed desirable. (To me, but obviously not
to you or to him).
What I did say was that the goal of a small language that changed
frequently was inconsistent with the other goals I listed. (Encouraging
the growth in re-usable code, growing the user base, and the use of the
language in large projects that take a long time to write and which stay
around for a long time).
It's OK, I understand you rank the desirability of those goals
differently. I'm not saying that a small language or change are bad
things, just they they have costs that are too often ignored on this list.