Arguably if Go had done this years ago, go.mod would not have existed and this would have an even bigger impact.
Just like we'll rarely pick exactly the right behavior, we'll rarely pick exactly the right time to fix the broken behavior.
Just like we'll rarely pick exactly the right behavior, we'll rarely pick exactly the right time to fix the broken behavior.
But a language more comfortable with change implies that change is more likely - not less likely. Given pretty much every modern language has some kind of dependency management utility - I'd be surprised if Go didn't end up with one
I'm interested in the logical arguments that would support this. I can't think of any.
No?
> Otherwise it'd been "Arguably if Go had done this years ago when go.mod did not exist, this would have had an even bigger impact" or something like this?
That’s a worst take on the same sentiment? I find your version a lot clunkier. The original sets a hypothetical stage and from that its conclusion, I think it flows better.
The stage is "years ago", and conclusion is "go.mod would not have existed and this would have an even bigger impact". My version re-arranges the sentence so that "go.mod not existing" bit is a part of the premise, not of the conclusion.
Tense agreement in English subjunctive is hard. Especially for non-natives such as me: I do parse the original statement like that and just can't bring myself to understand it otherwise.
If the comma had instead been the word "when", as suggested, this would parse the other way. It still would have been a bit awkward but would make sense.
IF loop variable syntax had been redefined years ago
THEN
go.mod would not exist
AND
impact would have been larger
IF loop variables had been redefined BEFORE go.mod existed
THEN impact would have been larger