> It's also a learning lesson for people who thought that a tiny, pre-v1.0 ecosystem that already had breaking changes would never break again especially in a way they disagree with. I think it's time to just accept the lesson.

This gives flashbacks of the last time I discussed this 7 years ago: Even trying to bring it up would bring denial that it was a problem. It was your fault for using it wrong. If you could demonstrate the cases where it continued to be a problem, it was still your fault for using the project.

Even the pre-1.0 projects I use that have breaking changes will announce a transition period and gradually deprecate APIs over several releases. Community feedback is monitored and the deprecated API may be kept longer than originally planned until suitable alternatives can be produced. Elm wouldn't even consider any of these.

The direction of the argument also changes based on the situation. When Elm was dropping breaking changes in 0.19 the story was that it's a fast changing pre-1.0 project and it was our fault for not expecting breaking changes.

Then they went 7 years without a release and the argument became that Elm was so stable that it was our fault for expecting updates to a mature and stable project.