Stories with Tag versioning

• The way we're thinking about breaking changes is silly

  permalink

  Posted: 2025-03-27 19:59:43

  Verbose tl;dr

  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.

  • Software Development
  • breaking changes
  • semantic versioning
  • API Design
  • versioning
  • software engineering
  • programming
  • compatibility
  • software maintenance
  • Dependencies

  Summary of Comments ( 29 )
  https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=43497506

  Verbose tl;dr

  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.

• Do any languages specify package requirements in import / include statements?

  permalink

  Posted: 2025-01-20 14:21:05

  Verbose tl;dr

  The Hacker News post discusses whether any programming languages allow specifying package dependencies directly within import or include statements, rather than separately in a dedicated dependency management file. The original poster highlights the potential benefits of this approach, such as improved clarity and ease of understanding dependencies for individual files. They suggest a syntax where version numbers or constraints could be incorporated into the import statement itself. While no existing mainstream languages seem to offer this feature, some commenters mention related concepts like import maps in JavaScript and conditional imports in some languages. The core idea is to make dependency management more localized and transparent at the file level.

  The Hacker News discussion thread titled "Do any languages specify package requirements in import / include statements?" explores the possibility and potential benefits of declaring dependencies directly within a file's import or include statements, as opposed to relying on separate package management systems. The original poster raises the question of whether any existing languages offer this functionality, envisioning a system where importing a module simultaneously specifies the required version or a range of acceptable versions of that module's package. This approach, they suggest, could simplify dependency management and potentially improve build reproducibility by explicitly encoding dependencies within the code itself. They also posit that such a system could streamline the process of setting up a development environment and reduce the reliance on complex external dependency resolution mechanisms. The implicit argument is that embedding dependency information within the import statements themselves would offer a more self-contained and potentially more robust way to manage project dependencies.

  • Programming Languages
  • package management
  • import statements
  • include directives
  • Dependencies
  • modules
  • Software Development
  • versioning
  • dependency resolution
  • Build Systems

  Summary of Comments ( 47 )
  https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=42768990

  Verbose tl;dr

  The Hacker News comments discuss the pros and cons of specifying package requirements directly within import statements. Several commenters appreciate the clarity and explicitness this would bring, as it makes dependencies immediately obvious and reduces the need for separate dependency management files. Others argue against it, citing potential drawbacks like redundancy, increased code verbosity, and difficulties managing complex dependency graphs. Some propose alternative solutions, like embedding version requirements in comments or using language-specific mechanisms for dependency specification. A few commenters mention existing languages or tools that offer similar functionality, such as Nix and Dhall, pointing to these as potential examples or inspiration for how such a system could work. The discussion also touches on the practical implications for tooling and build systems, with commenters considering the impact on IDE integration and compilation processes.

  The Hacker News post "Do any languages specify package requirements in import / include statements?" generated a robust discussion with several compelling comments exploring the advantages and disadvantages of different dependency management approaches.

  Several commenters highlighted existing language features that offer similar functionality to the proposed idea of embedding dependency specifications within import statements. One commenter mentioned import maps in JavaScript, which allow specifying alternative URLs for dependencies. Another pointed to D's selective import functionality, enabling imports based on build configurations and compiler versions, thereby achieving a degree of conditional dependency management. Cargo's feature system in Rust was also mentioned, offering a form of conditional compilation and dependency selection. Zig's comptime import mechanism, allowing dependency decisions at compile time based on code logic, was also discussed as a related concept.

  The discussion then delved into the complexities and potential drawbacks of embedding dependency specifications directly into import statements. A significant concern raised was the potential for making code harder to reason about due to hidden dependencies and implicit behavior. Commenters argued that a centralized dependency management system provides greater clarity and easier maintenance.

  The benefits of explicit dependency management, as seen in systems like npm, pip, and Cargo, were also emphasized. These systems allow for version locking, conflict resolution, and reproducible builds, aspects considered critical for managing complex software projects. One commenter argued that while inline dependency specifications might seem simpler initially, they would ultimately reinvent the wheel and likely lack the robustness of dedicated dependency management tools.

  Furthermore, the conversation touched upon the challenges of implementing such a system, including resolving circular dependencies, managing transitive dependencies, and handling different versions of the same package. Some commenters expressed skepticism about the feasibility and practicality of achieving these goals without introducing significant complexity.

  A few users offered alternative approaches, suggesting ideas like using comments or annotations alongside import statements to specify dependency metadata. However, these suggestions were met with counterarguments about the lack of standardization and potential for inconsistency.

  In summary, the comment section reveals a general consensus that while the idea of specifying package requirements within import statements might seem appealing at first glance, the practical implications and potential drawbacks, such as increased complexity and reduced maintainability, outweigh the perceived benefits. Existing solutions, like dedicated dependency management systems and language-specific features, are generally considered more robust and effective for handling the complexities of dependency management in software development.