In semantic versioning, going from 1.X to 2.X is only indicated when there are incompatible API changes. Adding generics doesn’t break compatibility with preexisting Go code, so it’s unnecessary to increment the major version.
It's much much more useful to the users to say, 2.0 introduced generics, it's distinct. If it's like other languages, generics changes the code people generate a lot, libraries start looking significantly different. It's very distinct, and if that is simply in version 1.18.0 or whatever, that is super bad usability from a language perspective.
This is actually very important. If something is a major change or not is pretty subjective.
I like this because it emphasizes the community's commitment backwards compatibility, which I greatly value. I've spent a good deal of time writing Javascript, where library developers seem to have very little respect for their users and constantly break backwards compatibility. In ecosystems like that, upgrading fills me with dread. When I see a library on version 4, I have learned to keep looking - if they weren't thoughtful enough about their API design for the first 3 major releases, I shouldn't expect it to be much better going forwards.
For an application, I'm pretty open to version numbers signifying big features - Firefox and Chrome do this, and it's helpful with marketing. But for a programming language? A programming language is a tool, and when upgrading you need to carefully read the changelog anyways. A programming language is no different from a library (in Clojure it literally is a library), and backwards compatibility is /literally/ the main thing I care about. Is my tool going to intrude on /my/ schedule, and force me to make changes /it/ wants instead of being able to spend my time making changes /I/ care about? I want to know that.
[0]This is apparently an awful example as I've just learned that Java is actually doing the major version only thing. It still sort of works because the only reason they can do that is because they Will Not Break Compatiblity.
17 -> 1.17, 11 -> 1.8, this is bothering me way to much for no good reason.
* Java 8 is Java 1.8.0
* Java 11 is Java 11.0.11 (at the moment)
* Java 17 is Java 17.0.1 (at the moment)
SunOS/Solaris is what I use when I want to get nerd-rage mad about minutae: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Oracle_Solaris#Version_history
https://docs.oracle.com/en/java/javase/17/language/java-lang...
https://docs.oracle.com/en/java/javase/17/migrate/getting-st...
The x.y versioning with y being a synonym for major version was abandonend in Java 9.
Why?
Old code still work and unless you are purposefully maintaining an old system you are expected to use the last version anyway. What does it actually change that generics were introduced in version 1.18 rather than 2.0? From now on, Go has generics. As there is no breaking change, it’s not like you had to keep using the previous version to opt out.
Since backwards compatibility is already a given for languages, you can then have the major version number indicate feature additions, rather than always being a constant value as semantic versioning would require.
Languages are software; they are dependencies of other software (the only unavoidable dependency!) and as such should absolutely be versioned.
Versioning isn't for marketing or providing easy ways for users to remember when features were released. It's a tool for change management. Exciting features often come with breaking changes, but not vice versa.
Semantic versioning is an approach to versioning. It's an approach which, as GP stated, was designed specifically to help with dependency updating.
GP isn't proposing that languages shouldn't be versioned, they're saying that semantic versioning is the wrong approach to versioning for a language.
1. Min version in go.mod 2. Add a build tag for what to do for new/old version of go (These tags are automatic, you just need to set them in the files)
When a language adds any features, if your dependencies (whether real library dependencies or just things you're copying from Stack Overflow) start using the new features, you must upgrade to the new language version. That is an inherent usability constraint, and every time a language designer chooses to add a feature, they're making a tradeoff. But if upgrading to the new language version is trivial, then it's generally a worthwhile tradeoff.
For instance, suppose I find some code that uses Python's removeprefix() method on strings. I need to use Python 3.9 or newer to use that code. It doesn't matter that this is a very small feature.
However, I can generally expect to upgrade my Python 3.8 code to Python 3.9 without trouble. It's different from, say, code that uses Unicode strings. For that code, I need to upgrade from Python 2 to Python 3, which I can expect to cause me trouble. The version numbers communicate that. It's true that Python 3 was a "big" change - but "big" isn't really the point. The point is that I can't use Python 2 code directly with Python 3 code, but I can use Python 3.8 code directly with Python 3.9 code. There are plenty of "big" changes happening within the Python 3 series, such as async support, that were made available in a backwards-compatible manner.
As it happens, Python does not use semantic versioning. But they have a deprecation policy which requires issuing warnings for two minor releases: https://www.python.org/dev/peps/pep-0387/ It's technically possible, I think, that a change like Unicode strings could happen within the Python 3.x series, but that's okay, provided they follow the documented versioning policy. This policy addresses the same question that semantic versioning does, but it provides a different answer: you can always upgrade to one or two minor versions newer, but at that point you must stop and address deprecation warnings before upgrading further.
You are, of course, free to also have a marketing version of your project to communicate how big and exciting the changes are. Windows is a great example here: Windows 95 was 4.0 (communicating both backwards incompatibility with 3.1 and major changes) and Windows 7 was 6.1 (communicating backwards compatibility with Vista but still major changes).
Or alternatively, complain loudly.
Why?
A language or API (things you program against) are pretty much the things for which SemVer makes sense.
> The major version should represent major language changes, not whether its a breaking change or not
I don’t care if changes are “major”, I care if the code I wrote for version X is expected to need modification to work correctly in version Y. SemVer gives me that, Subjective Importance Versioning does not.
Yes, it would. Breaking is breaking.
A fix is not a breaking change in the API, because “breaking” refers to expected behavior (so, yes, code that relies on a bug can be broken by a fix; presumably, if you've coded to an observed behavior differing from the spec you are aware of having done so.)
The solution clearly can't be to never ever fix bugs though.
But depending on the kind of bugs (especially when they are of the "gotcha"/"UX" kind) often it's better to just create a new API version with the corrected behaviour and keep existing software apply handle the old behaviour the best they could.
But clearly for many many other kinds of bugs (security etc) we are better served with a bug fix in the old API even if that implies a possibility for breaking somebody.
The perfect simple world that a naive interpretation of semver dreams of leads to those endless streams of major.0.0 increments fueled by better safe than sorry. "You have been warned, your code might break, no promises". After all there could always be some xkcd 1172 "every change breaks someone's workflow". In an infinite universe of monkeys on typewriters someone would have set up mission critical infrastructure based on an elaborate log4jndi deploy mechanism.
On the other extreme you have something like Java that's in the process of dropping a frozen first digit ever since 1.2. Sure, this predates semver by quite some time but if we'd try to designate meaningful major.minor.patch names in hindsight we'd certainly not go exclusively by the occasional new keywords in the syntax like var but by new feature groups like generics, lambdas and the like, most of which have been introduced without invalidating any old syntax.
"We're awesome at backwards compatibility, but this change is noteworthy enough to warrant a major, better introduce some artificial incompatibility" is something that should never happen.
There are also changes which are breaking in a very non-obvious way, to put it mildly. For example, in C# again, adding any new member to a class can break existing code that happens to pass implicitly typed lambdas to overloaded methods, because overload resolution involves checking whether the lambda body is valid for a given candidate - thus, adding a member can make a lambda ambiguous. I'm not aware of anyone actually treating this as a breaking change for semver purposes, though.
To me it just feels like semantics. They said "here's a new major version of python" when they could also have said "we have forked python 2 and we're calling it python 3. We think it's better and we will probably abandon python 2 at some point".
But it's about setting expectations.
The only problem I ever had with py2 to py3 migration was that it was even possible to have the same codebase run against both, when languages are incompatible to such a degree (most notably, basic type has changed). It basically forced people to make the worst use of the Python dynamic nature (as soon as the stdlib started doing that, there was no going back).
To me, Python represents how not to do language versioning.
https://docs.microsoft.com/en-us/dotnet/csharp/language-refe...
If semantic versioning is used correctly, like here, that's actually a reasonable-ish attitude.
I'm afraid that expectation isn't entirely warranted. Especially around standard library issues.
I don't agree. I usually don't care so much when a particular feature was introduced into a language (and if I do, it's usually a Wikipedia search away). I mostly care whether or not code written assuming version X can be compiled with version Y of the compiler. Semantic versioning can tell me the latter. Making versioning arbitrarily depend on what someone considers a "big" feature doesn't help me.
The PR version doesn't even have to be numeric. You can give them proper names.
It was confusing.
I care very much when a feature was introduced into a language, because maintaining compatibility with earlier versions of the language determines what features may be used. If I'm working on a library that needs to be compatible with C++03, then that means avoiding smart pointers and rvalues. If I'm working on a library that needs to be compatible with C++11, then I need to write my own make_unique(). If I'm working on a library that needs to be compatible with C++14, then I need to avoid using structured bindings.
If a project allows breaking backwards compatibility, then SemVer is a great way to put that information front and center. If a project considers backwards compatibility to be a given, then there's no point in having a constant value hanging out in front of the version number.
> I mostly care whether or not code written assuming version X can be compiled with version Y of the compiler.
Semantic versioning can only tell that for the case where X < Y (old code on new compiler). In order to determine it for X > Y (new code on old compiler), you need to know when features were introduced.
I think this is a deliberate reduction of dimensionality. Go says that you don't need to worry (for long) about this case, because the toolchain must be updated regularly - and promises that it will be as pain free as possible. This simplifies for the Go team, for library authors, and library users in most cases, at the expense of maintaining a recent toolchain.
Not saying this tradeoff is for everyone, and I've never used C++ professionally so I'm probably ignorant. But are you saying it's common with production projects that use a compiler from 2003 or earlier? What's the use case?
Modern C++ compilers are not necessarily available on all platforms. For example, Solaris, AIX or old RedHat versions. Go doesn't have this problem yet, but it will.
Let's start with the fact that newer doesn't mean better. With already deployed compiler you have tested it and know that it works good enough (code it generates, bugs you have workarounds for, etc). Where with new compiler you are on step one. You must do work again.
Or vendors just support particular version they have patched.
Or you are scared of GPL3.
The first difference is that there isn't just a single compiler, but rather a standard that gets implemented by different compiler vendors. It's gotten better since then, but typically it would be a while between the updated standard being released and the standard being supported by most compilers. (And even then, some compilers might not support everything in the same way. For example, two-phase lookup was added in C++03, but MSVC didn't correctly handle it until 2017 [0].)
The second difference is that the C++ compiler may be tightly coupled to the operating system, and the glibc version used by the operating system. Go avoids this by statically compiling everything, but that comes with its own mess of security problems. (e.g. When HeartBleed came out, the only update needed was for libopenssl.so. If a similar issue occurred in statically compiled code, every single executable that used the library would need to be updated.) So in many cases, in order to support an OS, you need to support the OS-provided compiler version [1].
As an example, physics labs, because that's where I have some experience. Labs tend to be pretty conservative about OS upgrades, because nobody wants to hear that the expensive equipment can't be run because somebody changes the OS. So, "Scientific Linux" is frequently used, based on RHEL, and used up until the tail end of the life-cycle. RHEL6 was in production use until Dec. of 2020, and is still in extended support. It provides gcc 4.4, which was released in 2009. Now, gcc 4.4 did support some parts of early drafts of C++11 (optimistically known at the time as C++0x), but didn't have full support due to lack of a time machine.
So when I was writing a library for use in data analysis, I needed to know the language and stdlib feature support in a compiler released a decade earlier, and typically stay within the features of the standard from almost two decades earlier.
[0] https://devblogs.microsoft.com/cppblog/two-phase-name-lookup...
[1] You can have non-OS compilers, but then you may need to recompile all of your dependencies rather using the package manager's version, keep track of separate glibc versions using RPATH or LD_LIBRARY_PATH, and make sure to distribute those alongside your library. It's not hard for a single program, but it's a big step to ask users of a library to make.
Also they may have sneaked it in because they're implicitly acknowledging fault in their previous design decision to exclude it.
that's why semver works; the definition of major change is defined, and that's when you update the major version number.
The Go people can just make up reasonable version numbers without having an all encompassing theory with definitions, and they only have to convince themselves, not everyone on earth.
but "breaking change" IS the criteria for reasonable version numbers that they have chosen.
"breaking change" is easily tested and well defined.
"big change" is as far from well defined as you can get, because "big" is unquantifiable and subject to judgement and interpretation; i.e. a poor candidate for drawing boundaries.
I'm just saying that they could have done something different, if they had wanted to, without working out a complete theory for that different thing.
Additive changes can be breaking changes quite easily, as those additions are adopted within a minor version range, as automated tooling needs to distinguish their presence, as documentation fragments.
My next biggest gripe with semver—that 0.y.z has entirely different semantics from any other major version—may actually be semantically better if adopted wholesale. If your interface changes, major version bump. Else you’re fixing bugs or otherwise striving to meet extant expectations.
A language update comes with the most fundamental set of libraries and APIs: the standard library (doubly so in Golang, which has a lot of batteries included).
It also potentially affects the behavior (if there are breaking changes) of all other third party libs.
The "silliness" part is a non sequitur from what proceeded it (and the following arguments don't justify it either).
>Your version is not really telling you the main things you care about.
The main thing (nay, only thing) I care about (for my existing code) from a language update is whether there were breaking changes.
I could not care less to have reflected in the version number whether a big non-breaking feature was introduced.
I can read about it and adopt it (or not) whether there's a accompanying big version number change or not.
>It's much much more useful to the users to say, 2.0 introduced generics, it's distinct.
That's quite irrelevant, isn't it?
It's not useful to users that follow the language (page, forums, blogs, etc.) and would already know which release introduced generics.
And it's also not useful to new users that get started with generics from day one of their Go use either.
So who would it be useful to?
Such a use would make the version number the equivalent of a "we got big new feature for you" blog post.
Major language changes almost implies breaking changes, like Python 2 to 3 was major changes that break things everything from how modules were changed, where they were, and some syntactic and fundamental changes as well.
Basically, if 1.18 code is extremely unlikely to work against a 1.17 compiler, because a new (technically additive) feature is pervasively threaded through new code, I feel like it's hard to describe them as part of the same epoch.
I don't write enough go to know if that's true for generics, but it seems like it could become true fairly quickly from my experience with other languages.
This is why you can't really use semver (usefully) for everything. What's a "breaking change" in a word processor?
Languages aren't used like word processors, but they also aren't exactly used like libraries either. People get stuck on language versions for different reasons than why they get stuck on library versions.
At any rate I think in practice I think languages that are trying to hew to semver concepts like this just wind up with a 'fake major version'. Since Rust, for eg., might never go to 2.x the 1. in front of 54 is really just academic. That's the "real" major version as far as anyone needs to know.
A lot of the arguments in this thread seem to be kinda tautological. There's no law that says they have to use semver, nor is there a law that says semver can't be imperfect. "Semver is semver because semver says so" is not a compelling argument.
also how is "big" even measured? meters? kilometers? it's immeasurable, which is why the rule is to update the version number based on what changes break existing code, because that can be measured
Every additive language change would be a breaking change in this ReverseSemVer you’re imagining.
These replies are incredibly and bizarrely dogmatic. I never knew it'd be so hard to have a discussion about semver without people just going "semver is semver" as if that means something.
You seem to have misunderstood. We're not pointing out that "semver is semver", we're pointing out that semver as defined with respect to compilers, which is to say, the ability of existing code to run with a new version of the compiler, and what you "perceive to be a limitation in semver" are fundamentally in tension.
The only non-perf changes that would be allowed as non-breaking changes if we addressed what you perceive to be limitations in semver are precisely those changes which would be breaking in semver-as-it-exists, and those permitted in semver-as-it-exists are precisely those which you perceive as limitations.
Happy to discuss semver, but fundamentally the thing here is that what would address your perceived limitations is... the literal opposite of semver. Which is fine! But something not being its literal exact opposite isn't exactly a flaw in the thing itself; you simply want something else entirely.
And again, I did not propose "the opposite of semver" or anything else. I said "some changes are poorly described by semver". It's a big leap from that to "I know exactly what you have in mind and it is every change is a major change." Which I... did not say anywhere?
Though, I do think that, as I mentioned elsewhere, this is approximately the net practical effect of using semver for things that have a principled opposition to breaking of backwards compatibility. If you never go to '2.0.0' then the '1.' part of '1.234234.0' is meaningless. Your version is just 234234.0 and you're playing the same game of pretend that '0.x' does in semver only with a bigger number. Again though, this is not me proposing that, it is me observing that the thing you're arguing against is possibly what's really happening anyways.
If you "aren't proposing" that, then all you seem to be saying is "I think sometimes major versions should signal that they break compatibility with old code and sometimes they should signal that they maintain compatibility with old code because of some never-promised loss of reverse compatibility with new code on old compilers" which ... sounds uninteresting, unreliable, and frankly terrible from the standpoint of anyone who wants automated tooling to be able to make decisions based on signals in the version numbers (which, while not 100% reliable, is still a huge win over the old days of "versions can just be whatever, man" imo)
But, the backwards compatibility guarantee is that code that worked with Go v 1.n will work with Go v 1.j, for j >= n.
Next para is based on my recollection of the discussion around generics.
Specifically for generics, any code that doesn't use generics is untouched by the presence of generics elsewhere. Code that is, in and of itself, not generic will, in most cases, being able to call functions that are declared generic without extra hassle (there are most probably a few cases where a type annotation on the function using generics would be required). Code using generic data types probably needs to type-annotate, but there may be cases where it's not necessary.
A language is an interface with humans. Switching to generics is a major change in the way to think about the source code. It's not an implementation detail which is not a big deal as long as the compiler can accept earlier source syntax.
Yours is a pretty good one, i think that software versions should be indicative of what it contains to the people using them, whereas some others primarily care about the compatibility with the other versions. Semantic versioning is better suited to the latter group, because it doesn't really care about what's in the software, beyond what the changes are when compared to the other versions - breaking functionality, non-breaking functionality or just fixes of some sort.
My own alternative would take a slightly different approach yet - a system that would indicate when something was released, as well as whether the release is supposed to be stable (think MySQL 5.7, but in a format like 2021-stable-1234), or something more like a rolling release/nightly build with the latest changes (in format like 2021-latest-2345), an idea that in part i shamelessly stole from the Unity game engine, Ubuntu and JetBrains IDEs, since having a glance at their versions makes it apparent what you're looking at.
I actually wrote about that idea on my blog: https://blog.kronis.dev/articles/stable-software-release-sys...
Since then, i've started using that scheme for a few internal libraries in my dayjob to see whether it will work out (where switching to something else would be a matter of updating the CI, so less than an hour), as well as some personal projects.
Of course, each versioning scheme has advantages and disadvantages.