Hacker News new | past | comments | ask | show | jobs | submit login

> if you broadcast clearly that undocumented behaviors are subject to change, then users can decide if they want to accept that risk

That sounds nice in theory, but doesn't really work in practice. If you're building infra and a core piece of your company's product relies on these undocumented behaviors, you can't just change the behavior and shrug your shoulders when the whole product breaks. Similar if you're providing an external API to users/customers, you can't just break their stuff without worrying about it.




I'd add, if the API is meant to implement a protocol but doesn't implement it quite correctly, you may object to the misimplementation, but if your code has to work with the implementation, you have to adapt to their bug. It's not even a matter of undocumented behavior.

Experienced recently as a consumer of an API when letsencrypt made a breaking change to implement the protocol correctly. Broke my code which relied on their original incorrect implementation.


Isn't this the exact reason people came up with semantic versioning?




Guidelines | FAQ | Lists | API | Security | Legal | Apply to YC | Contact

Search: