[racket] Poll: Does anybody besides Doug use 'plot'?

Robby Findler wrote at 09/30/2011 01:05 PM:
> On Fri, Sep 30, 2011 at 12:01 PM, John Clements
> <clements at brinckerhoff.org>  wrote:
>    
>>   In my world, a change will fall into the "yes, racket is a rapidly changing language" bin;
>> it's not unusual for much of my old code to be broken.
>>      
> I realize this is a meta question, but is this the world we really
> want Racket to be in?
>    

I want it to be stable (backward-compatible changes in general).  
However, I also want it to continue to innovate.  I think that the 
interactivity between the developers and users of the platform permits 
us to have both.  Sometimes, you can simply ask "hey, is it OK with 
everyone if I break such-and-such slightly, requiring you to make a 
small code change?", and if the answer is yes, you collectively save a 
person-week of work and also avoid some legacy cruft.

On the other hand, if you want Racket to be an exercise and showcase for 
perfect backward compatibility, that might be interesting.  Perhaps 
someone can find some novel techniques to help do that, and some way of 
demonstrating the contribution (seamless backward compatibility 
throughout evolution, without some cost that systems traditionally incur 
to satisfy that).

-- 
http://www.neilvandyke.org/