I have read several times that they do not consider the language stable. Yet they repeatedly advertise it as «production-ready» [1,2], which is contradictory at best.
> the language is done, you can expect no breaking changes
Well ... I don't use Elm in production. But, I'm sure there are people out there who got gaslighted because of this ill-conceived move, and they can better explain about 'production readiness' story that was weaved around Elm.
> Hence the fact that it is v0.19
I also don't understand how can a minor version 0.18 -> 0.19 completly break backwards compatibility even if it is not stable. Well may be it's just Elm. They should have atleast thrown a `deprecated` warning and maintain backwards compatibilty till the next major version.
ziotom78|5 years ago
[1] https://discourse.elm-lang.org/t/two-experiences-with-elm/91...
[2] https://github.com/gdotdesign/elm-github-install/issues/62#i...
palerdot|5 years ago
Well ... I don't use Elm in production. But, I'm sure there are people out there who got gaslighted because of this ill-conceived move, and they can better explain about 'production readiness' story that was weaved around Elm.
> Hence the fact that it is v0.19
I also don't understand how can a minor version 0.18 -> 0.19 completly break backwards compatibility even if it is not stable. Well may be it's just Elm. They should have atleast thrown a `deprecated` warning and maintain backwards compatibilty till the next major version.
yhoiseth|5 years ago
> Major version zero (0.y.z) is for initial development. Anything MAY change at any time. The public API SHOULD NOT be considered stable.
1. https://semver.org/#semantic-versioning-specification-semver