Hacker Read top | best | new | newcomments | leaders | about | bookmarklet login

That's why i specifically wrote -> stable...


sort by: page size:

correct, and that is why I think stable is an important feature.

To be fair, "stable" also means "can stand up without falling over", which in a computer context gives it the secondary meaning (besides "unchanging") of "doesn't crash", which is very easily interpreted by the layman as "not beset by bugs that make it crash".

Could you elaborate on the stability part of your comment?

Stable?

Stable?

Stable in what way?

'-STABLE' refers to ABI/KBI stability.

"stable".

So unstable is reasonably stable?

Well, it's not called "stable".

Why do they call it "stable" then?

Why should it be more stable?

I think the title should rather be "write stable architecture", this is kind of misleading. The code can still be unstable according to this ;)

"it's unstable, but not that unstable"

You mean, it's stable. That sounds like a good reason to use it, not to avoid it.

Thanks for explaining! I suppose I've been using "unstable" a bit too liberally in this thread.

It's a bit weird to list "stable" as an advantage in the current mess, though.

So, not stable. Stable in this context means "stable foundation" or "static" and is unrelated to "not crashing".

Fine, meta-stable. :-)
next

Legal | privacy