I agree with what most people have said, from "both" sides. Most of the Smalltalkers I know that are making a living out of it are small teams, if not single developer companies (letting aside the fact my company have more than a dozen of smalltalkers). The transition path should be done as painless as possible for the current users of Pharo, given the restricted manpower such teams have.
On the other hand going from 1.4 to 2.0 is a major release, and it has its tradeoffs, so to have the improvements you have to sacrifice some things, the Pharo team COULD make everything backward compatible, but it has a limited manpower too. There is certainly a PR issue here, as an outsider to the Pharo community (but watching it close since some time) I've been seeing an increment of "harsh" responses to those requesting features or "wishes" for the project (without considering the fact that some might have good or bad intentions). My POV on this is that Pharo, by means of its "board/committee/team", have a strong decision on where to take the future of it, it will accept improvements and contributions, but in the end they're going to be the curators of the final product, like a vendor would do it. And I think that's a good thing, projects need a "benevolent dictator". It's a matter of time to see the results of the path taken. "If Henry Ford had asked his customers, they would have told him they want a faster horse...'' I certainly do not want a faster horse. Regards, -- Esteban M. -- View this message in context: http://forum.world.st/About-backwards-Compatibility-tp4658784p4659411.html Sent from the Pharo Smalltalk mailing list archive at Nabble.com.
