potetm

regardless of the mechanism, you still run into the exact same problem John had.

Of course it's functionally lock files. They do the same thing!

There's a very strong argument that manually managing deps > auto updating, regardless of the ergonomics.

P.S. You're, right, but also it's where the greatest remnant remains. :(

"There is another tool that does exactly the job of a lockfile, but better."

vs

"You can use make to ape the job of dependency managers"

wat?

The point isn't, "There are zero problems with maven. It solves all problems perfectly."

The point is, "You don't need lockfiles."

And that much is true.

(Miss you on twitter btw. Come back!)

pip install git-of-theseus git clone repo cd repo git-of-theseus-analyze . git-of-theseus-stack-plot cohorts.json

Ah! You caught me in an editing discontinuity.

Maybe I didn't do a good enough job demonstrating how common it is for backwards compatibility to be broken. You're right that many devs value stability—not just clojure devs. But there are also many communities where breaking stuff is normal. This is addressing the latter, obviously.

love it!

fair

I'm sympathetic to this idea, but in practice it's very manageable. Function signatures destructure exactly the data that they need, so it's easy to tell what's required and what's optional.

Of course, normal rules apply like, "Don't pollute your program with a proliferation of booleans."

Not sure what you mean. The Scala example looks nothing like the Clojure examples.

The retention charts show you how much new code is replacing old code, and you can see the releases/rewrites as the code gets replaced.

That sounds like a complete tirefire tbh. The exact thing that I'm hoping to convince people to stop doing.

I'm glad the article was helpful though!