problem is that in Pharo, the difference between "the language" and "the library" is subtle :)
On Dec 11, 2012, at 4:34 PM, dimitris chloupis <[email protected]> wrote: > Well in summary he says "get out of your comfort zone and deal with it" , > bare in mind that the video *is not* about backward compatibility but about > implementing new features in general. He also speak in purely a library and > not a language perspective. > > He makes some valid points. I am not totally against braking backward > compatibility , but overall I have to agree with the first youtube comment > that overall the presentation is boring and could be easily summarized in a 3 > minute talk. > > And of course I do disagree strongly with his point that "learning the hard > way of doing things will make you a better coder" because the success of > python and ruby clearly show quite the opposite. I do agree however that "we > do not need to babysit new coders" and that "beginner coders should be diving > neck deep to coding as fast as possible because they are far more capable > than they think they are" . So he definitely makes some valid points . > > From: H. Hirzel <[email protected]> > To: [email protected] > Sent: Tuesday, 11 December 2012, 17:05 > Subject: Re: [Pharo-project] About (backwards) Compatibility > > Marcus, thank you for the link. > May I ask somebody who has watched the video to post a few words of a > summary here....(keywords are fine) > > --Hannes > > On 12/11/12, Marcus Denker <[email protected]> wrote: > > > > The inventor of Ruby on Rails gave a talk about this topic: > > > > https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VOFTop3AMZ8 > > > > > > On Dec 11, 2012, at 11:02 AM, Esteban Lorenzano <[email protected]> > > wrote: > > > >> yeah, but that's a direct path to stagnation, and that's what happened > >> with fortran, java and all the languages that have put backward > >> compatibility as top priority. > >> in other side, .net is not backward compatible and it has success anyway > >> so, is not so clear for me. > >> > >> I still prefer to drop backward compatibility time to time to drop a full > >> language each 10 years :) > >> > >> Esteban > >> > >> On Dec 11, 2012, at 10:23 AM, dimitris chloupis <[email protected]> > >> wrote: > >> > >>> I have to say I am on of those people who love backward compatibility. I > >>> actually come from a programming language that did exactly what the quote > >>> says. It was not a fun experience. Python 3 broke compatibility with > >>> python 2. Most of the libraries did ignore python 3 for quite some time > >>> and some still do. Actually if you google for "python 3" the second > >>> search result of it is the "python wall of shame" where you will find > >>> many of python libraries still stuck to python 2. The reason is that is a > >>> lot of work to rewrite parts of library to make it compatible with python > >>> 3. And note that python 3 has been around for 5 years. And is most likely > >>> it will be another 5 till most major python libraries are finally ported > >>> to python 3. > >>> > >>> http://python3wos.appspot.com/ > >>> > >>> Usually when I see "tragic fate" , "dead" , "declined" etc mentioned in > >>> the same sentence with a programming language I am certain that it will > >>> mention some "big flaw" of the language and I am going to facepalm > >>> myself. In 99% of all case of "dead" languages it has nothing to do with > >>> the language itself and has everything to do with hype and lack of good > >>> marketing. > >>> > >>> I can tell you one thing, AFAIK the decision to brake compatibility with > >>> python is still a big reason why one should not use python and is > >>> considered one of the big flaw of python. I know that some people are in > >>> denial, and I agree that python has been improved but not without paying > >>> a big price as the "wall of shame" clearly shows. > >>> > >>> I can bring you another example, blenderpython, its the well known > >>> Blender python api of the well known open source 3d app. Well if you take > >>> a look at it you will find two things. a) blender 2.5 has been a rewrite > >>> which is a very good thing but that ment sacrificing many useful addons > >>> because not only the library changed but also they moved from python 2 to > >>> 3 and b) API keeps braking compatibility in almost every single version. > >>> The result is an army of addons that are left unmaintained because the > >>> author makes something but he is not able to maintain every second month > >>> because the developer decided to brake compatibility. Users ask for > >>> updates to the addons and usually developers search for another developer > >>> to maintain but most of those addons are left for dead. And that is > >>> thousands of lines of code gone to waste. Actually very few developers > >>> stick to blenderpython for this very reason. > >>> > >>> So no I have to disagree there, between choosing a better language or a > >>> useful library and code that works in long term, I choose the second. I > >>> am full on progress but I do find braking compatibility is just the easy > >>> , convinient solution that does not quite work well in practice . > >>> > >>> From: Fernando Olivero <[email protected]> > >>> To: "[email protected]" > >>> <[email protected]> > >>> Sent: Tuesday, 11 December 2012, 10:36 > >>> Subject: [Pharo-project] About (backwards) Compatibility > >>> > >>> Hi, i wanted to share an "old" quote which i find relevant to our > >>> community. Just replace FORTRAN's with loads of stuff we had in the > >>> bloated images in the past, most of them useful to get were we are right > >>> now. > >>> > >>> "FORTRAN's tragic fate has been its wide acceptance, mentally chaining > >>> thousands and thousands of programmers to our past mistakes. I pray daily > >>> that more of my fellow-programmers may find the means of freeing > >>> themselves from the curse of compatibility." > >>> > >>> Dijkstra, The Humble Programmer, 1972 > >>> > >>> > >>> > >>> > >> > > > > > > >
