Caveat that I only have a tiny amount of experience with Clojure and none at all with Scala, so this isn't coming from a place of language knowledge in those fields.
I'm not convinced though that the Clojure graph represents something I'd view positively. Notably, the Scala codebase gets smaller at one point, which looks fantastic to me. Nobody want the world changing under there feet every five seconds, but if code just accumulates without refactors, the end product often becomes not only unusable, but also difficult to replace.
Personally, I'd much prefer more frequent refactors in a changing codebase (vs code addition) but with a strict adherance to semvar, that way, I can stick on v3 or whatever if I'm worried about v4 breaking things for me, but the project itself doesn't need to worry about stagnating, or being stuck with design decisions that aren't relevant anymore.
I'm always happy when I see a library like pyarrow that has high version numbers, because I take it as a sign that they're most likely actually following semvar, as opposed to libraries that stay on v0 for 10+ years.
I'm not convinced though that the Clojure graph represents something I'd view positively. Notably, the Scala codebase gets smaller at one point, which looks fantastic to me. Nobody want the world changing under there feet every five seconds, but if code just accumulates without refactors, the end product often becomes not only unusable, but also difficult to replace.
Personally, I'd much prefer more frequent refactors in a changing codebase (vs code addition) but with a strict adherance to semvar, that way, I can stick on v3 or whatever if I'm worried about v4 breaking things for me, but the project itself doesn't need to worry about stagnating, or being stuck with design decisions that aren't relevant anymore.
I'm always happy when I see a library like pyarrow that has high version numbers, because I take it as a sign that they're most likely actually following semvar, as opposed to libraries that stay on v0 for 10+ years.