I think you conflate marketing with technical change.
There are multiple reasons given above why strict semantic versioning is not used in real-world software, that is a reductive summary of one of them.
Yes, I've read those articles a while back when they were written. In a very real sense, a consumer can never be sure that software keeps running properly if a library changes in any way without extensive checks. Real-world loose semantic versioning is a promise, not a proof, and it works better that way.
I don't personally think the current go proposal is terrible or sucks, but I do think it could be improved, and it'll be improved by listening to how people use versions.
There are multiple reasons given above why strict semantic versioning is not used in real-world software, that is a reductive summary of one of them.
Yes, I've read those articles a while back when they were written. In a very real sense, a consumer can never be sure that software keeps running properly if a library changes in any way without extensive checks. Real-world loose semantic versioning is a promise, not a proof, and it works better that way.
I don't personally think the current go proposal is terrible or sucks, but I do think it could be improved, and it'll be improved by listening to how people use versions.