One possible approach that just occurred to me waking up this morning is to just do it. The very idea that now is a good time to ask the question is a milestone. 1.0 marks the time that the question was asked as to what it would take for there to be a 1l0! That was a typo, I meant 1.0, but why use a decimal point? call it 1|0, and then you can REALLY have your own definition as to what the version meant.
Seriously, I agree that there would be power in having a book that corresponds with 1.0 even to the extent that it were part of a title, like "Clojure 1.0". * Ok, here's another perspective now:* People talk about Erlang as being fairly unique in that distributed computing was taken into consideration as part of the core language design rather than being bootstrapped on top as an after thought. Clojure has a lot of nice design considerations along these lines, too. If the 1.0 line is drawn in the sand, and there are a lot of nice design ideas coming around the corner, while baselining now (after moving a few things from the core like file io) could make things feel more sane, if any of these changes really are revolutionary, they might not have the same pizaz in a post 1.0 release. They could with the right marketting, like "redesigned from the ground up", or something, but it could be somewhat like Perl 6.0. I hear it's nice and maybe taking a look at, but when it first, finally came out, the message I got (mostly from Perl people) was "don't bother". That could happen with a 2.0 or post 1.0, too. On Fri, Apr 17, 2009 at 6:21 AM, Rich Hickey <richhic...@gmail.com> wrote: > > Thanks all for the feedback. One impression I get is that it seems the > existing community is getting along ok on trunk, so perhaps we also > need to consider those not yet using Clojure, possibly even because of > a lack of 1.0. > > I joked about book authors, but I'd like to make it clear that I think > it is very important that Stuart's book correspond to a release of > Clojure. It would be huge for newcomers coming to Clojure find a book > that says "Covers Clojure 1.0", and a compatible download for 1.0.x > with the latest fixes. > > Stuart has worked hard on tracking the latest changes, as have I in > trying to get in those changes that would be breaking as soon as I > could before 1.0. I'm presuming it's not too late to get "Covers > Clojure 1.0" in there (Stuart?), and, if so, it is a factor in this > decision. > > I'll also add that there is plenty more I'd like to do, and as soon as > I get into that trunk will again be changing rapidly. There simply has > to be a branch for fixes only. > > As to the feedback: > > A library management system seems like a tall order for a language > 1.0. It is certainly an interesting and useful pursuit, but given the > variety of approaches and opinions therein, it seems a bit out in > front of us. Advantages of Maven vs Ivy vs whatever should be > separate. Git is not going to happen any time soon, great as it may > be, given the current lack of infrastructure (google code) and tools > support. Is there some respect in which this impacts the core? It > would seem dangerous to marry any single approach in the language > itself. > > A deprecation policy is a good idea. Backward compatibility mode is > unlikely. > > As for tests, there are tests in: > > > http://code.google.com/p/clojure-contrib/source/browse/#svn/trunk/src/clojure/contrib/test_clojure > > Anyone who wants more tests can contribute them. > > Overall, I'm getting feature requests (more change!) and not a strong > drive for 1.0 stability. If you feel otherwise, please speak up. > Otherwise, my conclusion is that 1.0 may be more important for not-yet- > users wary of working from source. > > Rich > > > > --~--~---------~--~----~------------~-------~--~----~ 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 -~----------~----~----~----~------~----~------~--~---
