>
> But what is the alternative?
>
> Running multiple versions of CF?
>
> if MM or NA wants to move the CF install base to their latest versions,
> then providing total backward compatibility will forever restrict the
> implementation to the mistakes and limitations of past versions.
The problem is that a lot of the things you see as mistakes, I see as
features - lack of NULL and strong typing being two examples. Many people
here seem to want to make CF more and more complicated. If MM implements all
of the suggestions given here, CF will lose its primary value - simplicity.
> MM did not do this (entirely) when they introduced CFMX -- they
> provided a sift program that pointed out discrepancies between CFMX &
> prior versions.
Moving from C++ to Java is a pretty big change. I'm surprised that MM did as
well with backward compatibility with it as they did. However, there's a
reason that a lot of folks haven't upgraded to CFMX, which is obviously bad
for MM's sales.
> Sure, it wasn't the most efficient, but Software and Hardware vendors
> could move their installed base to the latest "whatever" with minimal
> (the key word is minimal) effort.
>
> Compatibility did not get in the way of progress!
Other people have different definitions of "minimal" and "progress".
Dave Watts, CTO, Fig Leaf Software
http://www.figleaf.com/
phone: 202-797-5496
fax: 202-797-5444
[Todays Threads] [This Message] [Subscription] [Fast Unsubscribe] [User Settings] [Donations and Support]
