# Another possible solution to the global scope debacle

**URL:** https://discourse.julialang.org/t/another-possible-solution-to-the-global-scope-debacle/15894
**Category:** Internals & Design
**Created:** [October 4, 2018, 6:14pm UTC](https://discourse.julialang.org/t/another-possible-solution-to-the-global-scope-debacle/15894 "2018-10-04T18:14:07Z")
**Posts on this page:** 1
**Showing post:** 19

<div class="post-metadata">

### Author: ![jeff.bezanson](https://sea2.discourse-cdn.com/julialang/user_avatar/discourse.julialang.org/jeff.bezanson/32/48_2.png) [@jeff.bezanson](https://discourse.julialang.org/u/jeff.bezanson)
#### Post date: [October 4, 2018, 8:37pm UTC](https://discourse.julialang.org/t/another-possible-solution-to-the-global-scope-debacle/15894/19 "2018-10-04T20:37:12Z")

</div>

Agree. Another way to look at it is: having both Julia 1.x and 2.x out there in the world has a cost. People need to spend more time dealing with the existence of incompatible versions. (I don’t want to dwell on it, but of course the python 2/3 split is the canonical example.) To pay that cost, there has to be some balancing benefit: Julia 2.0 has to be significantly better than 1.0 to make it worthwhile. While this scope change is highly desired by many people, I don’t think it meets that bar.

---

_[View the full topic](https://discourse.julialang.org/t/another-possible-solution-to-the-global-scope-debacle/15894)._