Quoth James McDonald: > > I noticed that in some of the backwardly compatible API's developers are > saddled with the good and the bad from a previous implementation and the > extra effort to maintain compatibility.
Well, all I can say is that maintaining backward compatibility is part of the contract developers make with users when they create an API. Of course software evolves, but that doesn't mean that gratuitous API breakage is acceptable. > Doesn't the re-implementation of certain API's help to create what could > be a great leap forward when the newer version comes out Existing APIs should be extended, not broken. There's nothing wrong with reimplementing existing APIs - the complaint here is that in the process of "reimplementing" them the old published interfaces were changed or discarded completely. Interface != implementation. > I'm not a developer but isn't gtk2 far superior to gtk1.x? *I* certainly don't think so. GTK+ 1.x worked well. It isn't as feature-rich as its newer version, but it isn't as bloated, either. > > -- > James McDonald > Systems Engineer > > Singleton NSW Australia > > > _______________________________________________ > Linux-users mailing list > [EMAIL PROTECTED] > Unsubscribe/Suspend/Etc -> http://www.linux-sxs.org/mailman/listinfo/linux-users -- The problem with any unwritten law is that you don't know where to go to erase it. -- Glaser and Way _______________________________________________ Linux-users mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] Unsubscribe/Suspend/Etc -> http://www.linux-sxs.org/mailman/listinfo/linux-users
