Re: Lua 5.2 Wish list item: stable API between versions

[Mike Kreuzer <mike@...>]

David Haley wrote:
> On this day of 11/14/2006 05:05 PM, Mike Kreuzer saw fit to scribe:
> > Glenn Maynard wrote:
> > > I don't want a Lua where luaL_checkudata has to always return
> > > NULL for backwards compatibility, even though the rest of the
> > > check* functions throw errors.  I want a Lua that's consistent
> > > today, even if it means more work to upgrade.  I don't want these
> > > deprecated functions and features to stick around in the code and
> > > headers and documentation forever; I want them to go away.
> > >
> > > I don't want Lua's evolution stunted by backwards compatibility.
> > Stuck.  Bloat.  Stunted.  ROTFL, tell me what you really think. :-)
>
> I think that Glenn was using those terms to describe what he feels
> would happen with a completely backwards compatible API: 1-
> everything would get stuck in the API forever
>
> 2- the result of things being stuck forever is bloat
>
> 3- since compatibility cannot be broken, new features are stunted 
> because they must be designed around old features that we might all 
> agree are no longer good
>
> I'm not sure what's inconsistent about this view, and certainly not 
> what's funny. Personally I would tend to agree with Glenn's post.

[snip]

That language is hilarious.  To me, obviously not to you.

Now, nowhere did I say that his view -- that maintaining compatibility
would lead to a slow down in change -- was inconsistent, because that's
perfectly consistent, and indeed desirable.  (To me, but obviously not
to you or to him).

What I did say was that the goal of a small language that changed
frequently was inconsistent with the other goals I listed.  (Encouraging
the growth in re-usable code, growing the user base, and the use of the
language in large projects that take a long time to write and which stay
around for a long time).

It's OK, I understand you rank the desirability of those goals
differently.  I'm not saying that a small language or change are bad
things, just they they have costs that are too often ignored on this list.

Regards,
Mike Kreuzer
www.mikekreuzer.com