_54qb
You can go crazy and spec everything, in fact that can help, but:
- In practise, nobody does it
- Specs come with no guarantees. They could even be wrong.
- The official implementation stubbornly insists on not checking return types, so half of your annotation may just be glorified documentation (although you can use third party libs like orchestra)
Just imagine: Add a new required field to a spec, and get a convenient list of source code locations that you need to review. That's the promise of a statically checked system. It's not a silver bullet, but not having this leads to what I like calling "refactor anxiety" (i.e.: did I handle all cases?)
I still love clojure no matter what. I think in practise you can express so much, so elegantly, and with far less code, that your project size is always sorta manageable.
High contrast is very useful for people with visual difficulties, but might even be counter-productive for certain types of eye strain.
I'm under the impression people asking for dark mode are looking for something that will emit less light off their screens, not necessarily make it look nore contrast-y, and the two are more often than not opposite.
To summarize, any change that offers more (as in, more fields in the output) and/or requires less (more of the original parameters made optional) is non-breaking.
Edit: Of course, this is all under the assumption that the semantics of methods should never change. Instead of changing semantics, he proposes to just create a new method with a new name.
On the other hand, using eval is almost never necessary in small standalone utilities.