leee wrote: > On Friday 16 Oct 2009, Martin Spott wrote: >> Instead of pouring time into a (probably) never ending chain of >> backward compatibility (alias "old cruft") layers, I think the >> effort is much better spent for bringing the respective aircraft >> configurations onto speed for FlightGear's current capabilities. > > Can you not see the self-contradiction in what you've written? > > You're claiming that compatibility is purely an issue for aircraft > developers, and not for software developers? > > Your assertion that aircraft developers are simply too lazy to spend > all of their available time fixing problems caused by the software > developers is simply insulting. Sadly though, I think that was > your intention.
I think Martin was referring to actions taken by the developers to make sure all aircraft in the base package were compatible with the new code again. But these days the number of aircraft (both in the base package and floating around on the net) have increased so much that this approach doesn't work any more. I agree that it's time to carefully think about configuration file changes and try to make them backwards compatible to some degree. Maintaining backwards compatibility forever is no option though. Erik ------------------------------------------------------------------------------ Come build with us! The BlackBerry(R) Developer Conference in SF, CA is the only developer event you need to attend this year. Jumpstart your developing skills, take BlackBerry mobile applications to market and stay ahead of the curve. Join us from November 9 - 12, 2009. Register now! http://p.sf.net/sfu/devconference _______________________________________________ Flightgear-devel mailing list Flightgear-devel@lists.sourceforge.net https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/flightgear-devel
