On Apr 17, 2:47 pm, revoltingdevelopment <christopher.jay.jo...@gmail.com> wrote: > Aside from that, I think you are right about the psychology of > language adoption and book-buying. Declaring 1.0 to coincide with the > content and publication date of Stuart's book is just an excellent > idea, regardless of all the other issues raised so far.
I would second that and add that having a fixed version (be it .99, ot 1.0 or 1.1 or whatever) is not useful only for the book, but also for tooling. It'd be nice to have IDE plugins versions, or Waterfront versions, that depend on a fixed stable version instead of the latest snapshot which my break or change stuff from one release to the next. Of course, once there is that first stable version with which the tool works, there's no harm in having alpha or beta release of the tool version using the latest Clojure snapshot. Plus it's always nice to be able to develop a library or whatever and assigning a language version to it, like we do with Java or .Net. --~--~---------~--~----~------------~-------~--~----~ 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 -~----------~----~----~----~------~----~------~--~---
