The blog post argues that the current approach to software versioning and breaking changes, particularly the emphasis on Semantic Versioning (SemVer), is flawed. It contends that breaking changes are inevitable and often subjective, making strict adherence to SemVer impractical and sometimes misleading. Instead of focusing on meticulously categorizing every change, the author proposes a simpler approach: clearly document all changes, regardless of their perceived impact, and empower users with robust tooling to navigate and manage these changes effectively. This includes tools for automated code modification and comprehensive diffing, enabling developers to adapt to changes smoothly even without perfect backwards compatibility. The core message is that thoughtful documentation and effective tooling are more valuable than rigidly adhering to a potentially arbitrary versioning scheme.
The blog post "The way we're thinking about breaking changes is really silly" argues that the conventional understanding and categorization of breaking changes in software development is overly simplistic and ultimately counterproductive. The author contends that the prevalent focus on semantic versioning, while offering a seemingly structured approach, fails to adequately capture the nuanced reality of how changes impact users. Specifically, the post challenges the binary classification of changes as either breaking or non-breaking. It posits that this rigid dichotomy ignores the spectrum of potential disruptions a change can introduce, ranging from minor inconveniences that require minimal adjustments to fundamental shifts that necessitate substantial code rewrites.
The author elaborates on this point by illustrating that even seemingly minor alterations, classified as non-breaking under semantic versioning, can indeed "break" things for certain users depending on their specific use cases and integrations. For instance, a seemingly innocuous optimization or refactoring, even within the confines of a "patch" release, might inadvertently alter behavior in edge cases, thus disrupting workflows and potentially leading to unforeseen errors in dependent systems. The post emphasizes that the true impact of a change is not solely determined by its technical nature but also by the context of its usage across diverse environments and integrations, a factor often overlooked in traditional breaking change classifications.
Furthermore, the author suggests that the current emphasis on avoiding breaking changes at all costs can stifle innovation and hinder progress. This aversion to disruption, the post argues, can lead to convoluted codebases and awkward workarounds as developers attempt to maintain backward compatibility even when it becomes detrimental to the overall design and efficiency of the software. The post proposes a shift in perspective, advocating for a more holistic evaluation of changes based on their overall impact, considering not just the immediate disruption but also the long-term benefits they might bring in terms of improved performance, maintainability, and future extensibility. Instead of fearing breaking changes, the author suggests embracing them as necessary steps in the evolutionary process of software development, provided they are introduced thoughtfully and communicated transparently to the user base. This approach, the post concludes, would foster a healthier and more sustainable development cycle, allowing for continuous improvement without being shackled by the constraints of a rigid and often misleading breaking change classification system.
Summary of Comments ( 29 )
https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=43497506
Hacker News users generally agreed with the author's premise that breaking changes are often overemphasized, particularly in the context of libraries. Several commenters highlighted the importance of semantic versioning as a tool for managing change, not a rigid constraint. Some suggested that breaking changes are sometimes necessary for progress and that the cost of avoiding them can outweigh the benefits. A compelling point raised was the distinction between breaking changes for library authors versus application developers, with more leniency afforded to applications. Another commenter offered an alternative perspective, suggesting the "silly" aspect is actually the over-reliance on libraries instead of building simpler solutions in-house. Others noted the prevalence of "dependency hell" caused by frequent updates, even without breaking changes. Finally, the inherent tension between maintaining backwards compatibility and improving software was acknowledged as a complex issue.
The Hacker News post titled "The way we're thinking about breaking changes is silly" generated a moderate amount of discussion with a mix of agreement, disagreement, and nuanced perspectives on the topic of semantic versioning and breaking changes.
Several commenters echoed the author's sentiment that focusing solely on the mechanical aspects of breaking changes, like changing a function signature, misses the broader point of whether a change actually breaks existing user workflows. They argued that a purely semantic approach can lead to situations where a technically non-breaking change (e.g., adding a new parameter with a default value) disrupts user expectations or requires them to modify their code for reasons other than functionality changes. This sentiment was expressed through anecdotes of libraries subtly changing behavior despite adhering to semantic versioning, causing frustration and unexpected integration work for users.
Some commenters took a more pragmatic stance, acknowledging the limitations of semantic versioning but defending its value as a useful tool. They pointed out that while it's not perfect, it provides a baseline level of predictability and allows developers to automate dependency management and updates. They suggested that the problem isn't semantic versioning itself, but rather its misapplication or overly rigid interpretation.
A few commenters offered alternative approaches to managing breaking changes, such as emphasizing thorough testing and communication with users. They suggested that automated tests specifically designed to catch unintended behavioral changes could be more effective than relying solely on semantic versioning. Clear and proactive communication with users about potential changes, even those technically non-breaking, was also highlighted as a key factor in mitigating disruption.
Another line of discussion focused on the trade-offs between stability and evolution. Commenters acknowledged the tension between maintaining backwards compatibility and introducing necessary improvements or new features. They explored strategies like providing long-term support branches for older versions, allowing users to gradually migrate to newer versions without immediate disruption.
There was also discussion about the role of tooling and static analysis in detecting breaking changes. Some commenters suggested that more sophisticated tools could help identify potential issues that might not be caught by a simple semantic version check.
Finally, a few commenters raised the issue of differing interpretations of what constitutes a "breaking change" across different programming languages and communities. They emphasized the importance of clear documentation and community guidelines to ensure consistent understanding and application of versioning principles.