undefined

points

[-]

Iterating often is not helpful for stable systems over time.

I like go's library it's got pretty much everything needed out of the box for web server development. Backwards compatibility is important too.

by JetSetIlly2 hours ago|

prev|

[-]

The golang.org/x/ namespace is the other half of the standard library in all but name. That gets iterated often.

For stuff in the standard library proper, the versioning system is working well for it. For example, the json library is now at v2. Code relying on the original json API can still be compiled.

by aatd864 hours ago|

prev|

[-]

There is a moral hazard here. By accepting that APIs are forever, you tend to be more cautious and move toward getting it right the first time. Slower is better... And also faster in the long run, as things compose. Personally, I do believe that there is one best way to do things quite often, but time constraints make people settle.

At least it is my experience building some systems.

Not sure it is always a good calculus to defer the hard thinking to later.

by incrudible5 hours ago|

prev|

[-]

The cost of "perfecting" an idea here is ruining the broader ecosystem. It is much much better for an API to be kinda crappy (but stable) for historical reasons than dealing with the constant churn and fragmentation caused by, for example, the fifth revision of that URL routing library that everyone uses because everyone uses it. It only gets worse by the orthogonal but comorbid attitude of radically minimizing the scope of dependencies.

by TheDong4 hours ago|

parent|

[-]

Which has been working great for go, right. They shipped "log" and "flag" stdlib packages, so everyone uses... well, not those. I think "logrus" and "zap" are probably the most popular, but there's a ton of fragmentation in Go because of the crappy log package, including Go itself now shipping two logging packages in the stdlib ('log/slog').

Rust on the other hand has "log" as a clear winner, and significantly less overall fragmentation there.

by dwattttt4 hours ago|

parent|

prev|

[-]

> It is much much better for an API to be kinda crappy (but stable) for historical reasons

But this does more than just add a maintenance burden. If the API can't be removed, architectural constraints it imposes also can't be removed.

e.g. A hypothetical API that guarantees a callback during a specific phase of an operation means that you couldn't change to a new or better algorithm that doesn't have that phase.

by TheDong4 hours ago|

parent|

[-]

Yes you can, and Go has done exactly that.

Realize the "log" api is bad? Make "log/slog". Realize the "rand" api is bad? Make "rand/v2". Realize the "image/draw" api is bad? Make "golang.org/x/image/draw". Realize the "ioutil" package is bad? Move all the functions into "io".

Te stdlib already has at least 3 different patterns for duplicating API functionality with minor backwards-incompatible changes, and you can just do that and mark the old things as deprecated, but support it forever. Easy enough.

by dwattttt4 hours ago|

parent|

[-]

> mark the old things as deprecated, but support it forever

Is that 'supported'? A library that uses a callback that exists in 'log' but not in 'slog'; it'll compile forever, but it'll never work.

'Compiles but doesn't work' does not count as stable in my book. It's honestly worse than removing the API: both break, but one of them is noticed when the break happens.

by bobbylarrybobby4 hours ago|

parent|

prev|

[-]

I think “the fifth revision of that URL routing library that everyone uses” is a much less common case than “crate tried to explore a problem space, five years later a new crate thinks it can improve upon the solution”, which is what Rust’s conservatism really helps prevent. When you bake a particular crate into std, competitor crates now have a lot of inertia to overcome; when they're all third-party, the decision is not “add a crate?” but “replace a crate?” which is more palatable.

Letting an API evolve in a third-party crate also provides more accurate data on its utility; you get a lot of eyes on the problem space and can try different (potentially breaking) solutions before landing on consensus. Feedback during a Rust RFC is solicited from a much smaller group of people with less real-world usage.

by skydhash8 minutes ago|

parent|

[-]

Is there that much to explore in a given problem space. I believe a lot of people will take the good enough, but stable API over the unstable one that is striving for an unknown state of perfection. The customer of a library are programmers, they can patch over stuff for their own use case. A v2 can be released once enough pain points have been identified, but there should be a commitment to support v1 for a while.