Sven and Leledumbo, I agree with the importance of backward compatibility, but I disagree when it becomes a reason to stop the implementation of improvements in the tool.
I remember the nigthmare of migrating my existing codebase to D2009 because of your new UnicodeString support. But, with this change, we became able to create apps with fully localization support. In my opinion, that is a great improvement! Of course, we have to try to minimize any side effect or impact that a change can cause, but when is impossible to avoid them, i believe that implementing the improvement is more important. Regards 2013/10/26 Sven Barth <pascaldra...@googlemail.com> > Am 26.10.2013 04:18 schrieb "Fabrício Srdic" <fabricio.sr...@gmail.com>: > > > > > I know I'm a newbie in fpc, but I don't see backward compatibility a > reason enough to leave to implement some improvements, like organize the > > base units of the fpc into proper namespaces. > > We value backwards compatibility very high as there is much code out there. > > > > > As Michael and Sven said, if Delphi itself is not fully compatible among > versions, why should fpc be? > > Because we are better. ;) > > Regards > Sven > > _______________________________________________ > fpc-pascal maillist - fpc-pascal@lists.freepascal.org > http://lists.freepascal.org/mailman/listinfo/fpc-pascal >
_______________________________________________ fpc-pascal maillist - fpc-pascal@lists.freepascal.org http://lists.freepascal.org/mailman/listinfo/fpc-pascal
