On Tue, Sep 27, 2011 at 11:57 AM, Arthur Edelstein
<arthuredelst...@gmail.com> wrote:
> So my request for Clojure's future development, is that backwards
> compatibility not be broken. This means that Clojure code needs a way
> of designating what Clojure version it is targeted for. Then, for
> example, the Clojure 1.4 jar should be able to "drop down" into
> backwards compatibility mode to compile and run 1.3-code, or invoke a
> 1.3-script's vars from a 1.4 script. It would also be super-cool if
> someone can figure out how to do this for existing 1.2 libraries.

I'm all for breaking as little as possible, and it's worth pointing
out that before the 1.3 release I have seen a total of two
backwards-incompatible changes to Clojure since starting to use it in
2008, even going a fair ways before 1.0 was released. However, a full
backwards-compatible emulation layer is asking an awful lot of the
Clojure maintainers. I personally would rather see them spend their
time on moving Clojure forward than legacy support.

> I love that Clojure is being constantly improved and developed, and I
> thank everyone who has been working so hard on it. In my opinion,
> though, third-party libraries are as important as the core language.
> Clojure 1.3 interoperates with java libraries very well -- so why not
> with Clojure 1.2 libraries?

You could do this with an independent classloader containing the old
jars. It wouldn't be as seamless as regular method calls, but as long
as the number of places where you cross the version boundary is fairly
small it shouldn't be too heinous. I don't think this belongs in
Clojure itself at all.

-Phil

-- 
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
Note that posts from new members are moderated - please be patient with your 
first post.
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

Reply via email to