Thats a very good quote, and you are absolutely correct . No choice is ideal until it has been taken , materialized and proven itself. But if it does its time is limited until its replaced hopefully by a better idea.
None knows before hand what the correct path really is. And as I mentioned already there are cases that braking backward compatibility makes perfect sense in some cases that is desperately needed. And unlike what Stephan said , I am definitely not here to whine. I am here to make sure Pharo is right choice for me. I talked and discussed backward compatibility because I want to know the intentions of Pharo developers. I want to know where Pharo is aiming to go and where it really goes. And finding the right choice is definitely a time consuming always on going travel. I am also aware of Pharo wanting more coding hands to make it better , but then which project does not ? There are times to code and times to discuss or sit back and think where you going , both are very important. Good designs never stay inside museums , they stand the test of time, they become the building blocks of the future. I am also excited so see people and teams use languages like smalltalk professionally and not choose other "safe options" or "popular options". It certainly makes me smile a bit more. ________________________________ From: Esteban A. Maringolo <[email protected]> To: [email protected] Sent: Sunday, 16 December 2012, 6:44 Subject: Re: [Pharo-project] About (backwards) Compatibility 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.
