On 22/10/2015 01:42, Gregory Collins wrote:
All I'm saying is that if we want to appeal to or cater to working software engineers, we have to be a lot less cavalier about causing more work for them, and we need to prize stability of the core infrastructure more highly. That'd be a broader cultural change, and that goes beyond process: it's policy.
Not that I disagree that we need general stability but, I think it's quite unfair to say that working software engineers are being pushed away because of the current "instability", and actually I don't see any proof of such a thing. Working software engineers have developed methods to deal with change (or not to deal with it) for decades. To name a few with Haskell: private hackage, stackage, cabal pinning. It's also commonly available through stack nowadays. Also, having worked on multiples different Haskell teams doing commercial/professional software, compiler/libraries upgrades were never a concern of the team. It was always something that can be dealt quickly, painlessly and with a lot more certitude w.r.t the quality assurance, compared to e.g. dynamic languages where you don't have any types safety etc.. I can't help but think that you meant "opensource library maintainers" instead of "working software engineers", which is somewhat a very different beast. -- Vincent