So the Rust community in general is pretty reluctant to move crates to 1.0, even when stable/bugfree. This is a problem, and is slowly improving, but that's currently the case.
0.x can mean "Not stable" and it can also mean "buggy", it need not mean both. Regardless of how bug-free the authors consider it to be, they won't mark it 1.0 until they think that they're happy with the API. IIRC they're waiting for tokio to be finished and for it to sit for a while to ensure the API is the right one, so it should be relatively free from bugs.
> Pinning a version number is a hack. Not something you should rely on for long-term stability.
Agreed. I'm saying that this shouldn't be a dealbreaker. It's usually very little work to upgrade to the latest version of a library.
Basically, mio's stability is a problem. Totally agree with that. But it's not as bad a picture as the article paints.
> So the Rust community in general is pretty reluctant to move crates to 1.0, even when stable/bugfree. This is a problem, and is slowly improving, but that's currently the case.
Keeping a package at 0.x means (to paraphrase) "I don't take responsibility. The code may or may not work and if it doesn't, then don't complain." (a) Putting it at 1.x means (to paraphrase) "I (the author) will at least respond to bug reports. I might even try to fix them if I have the time." (b)
Free software authors have this choice.
> so it should be relatively free from bugs.
And if it isn't? For example, I looked at the tracker and found a number of open bugs which looked troublesome for the Windows backend. I think you are doing the mio project a disservice by promising more than the developers themselves have said that they are willing to deliver.
Yes, and while that's what 0.x usually means, in the Rust community (and in other communities) it's usually more complicated than that. For mio in particular it's been a crate that a lot of folks have been using and it's been working fine. I'm not saying that that's the message that the version number broadcasts. You're totally right that it broadcasts a message that the crate is immature. I'm saying that the actual situation is not as bad as it sounds.
Fair point about the bugs :) I wasn't aware of them, and I've only heard really good things about mio.
0.x can mean "Not stable" and it can also mean "buggy", it need not mean both. Regardless of how bug-free the authors consider it to be, they won't mark it 1.0 until they think that they're happy with the API. IIRC they're waiting for tokio to be finished and for it to sit for a while to ensure the API is the right one, so it should be relatively free from bugs.
> Pinning a version number is a hack. Not something you should rely on for long-term stability.
Agreed. I'm saying that this shouldn't be a dealbreaker. It's usually very little work to upgrade to the latest version of a library.
Basically, mio's stability is a problem. Totally agree with that. But it's not as bad a picture as the article paints.