Proposal: Raise SDK constraint to Dart >=3.0.0 to enable modern features, like sealed classes and pattern matching

[goerlitz]

Hi,

I'd like to propose updating the SDK constraint in pubspec.yaml to:

environment:
  sdk: '>=3.0.0 <4.0.0'

This change would allow us to use modern Dart 3 features, like pattern matching, records, switch expressions, sealed classes etc., which are not available in Dart 2.x. For instance, pattern matching and better exhaustiveness checking improve the maintainability of logic in the code.

Dart 3.0 was released in May 2023 and has seen broad adoption. Raising the minimum SDK would align this package with the current Dart ecosystem and open the door to more modern and expressive language features.

Please let me know if you're open to this change or if broader SDK support is a requirement for this project.

Thanks!

[monsieurtanuki]

Hi @goerlitz!
To be honest, I'm not a big fan of dart 3.0.
And I don't believe we need it for openfoodfacts-dart.
That said, I may be wrong.
And we never planned to avoid dart 3.0. We usually avoid to upgrade immediately to the latest versions. In that case, 2 years is more than enough, so I'm not against an upgrade to dart 3.0.

[goerlitz]

Actually, I'm using a dart 3.0 features a lot because it makes the code cleaner, more robust (e.g. null safety, exhaustive matching) and often more readable.

I checked the smooth-app - it also uses sdk: ^3.6.1 link

Disclaimer: the PR I'm working on heavily relies on Dart 3.0 features. ;)

[monsieurtanuki]

@goerlitz dart 3.0 makes the code more compact. I wouldn't say it's cleaner or easier to read.

If you're referring to PR #1069, I'm not sure we need dart 3.0. We just need to catch exceptions. Which is something dart does lazily: that's why I introduced MaybeError. This way, users don't have to care at all if the network or the server are down. They just have to check if there's an error - they cannot ignore that possibility with such a lousy class name.

Please keep in mind that we prefer to avoid breaking changes, too.

[goerlitz]

I meant #1079 (not #1069) ;)