Thanks, (I have mixed feelings about this, it's a sort of trade-off). I hope that on the source level (particularly system classes) at least upward compatibility remains. Greetings :o) Ted
On Wed, Apr 27, 2011 at 11:31 AM, Mariano Martinez Peck <[email protected]> wrote: > > > On Wed, Apr 27, 2011 at 11:25 AM, Ted F.A. van Gaalen <[email protected]> > wrote: >> >> Hi Marcus >> As I wrote, I am thinking from the perspective >> of an application developer, a typical pharo-user ? >> imagine that I/we have hundreds of >> apps written, will they run unchanged >> say 5 years from now? > > > Probably not. We would like to improve the system and clean it. > Unfortunately, sometimes there is no other way than loosing backward > compatibility. > What do you prefer? Pharo choose a better system. > > If you/companies do not even collaborate with updating your code (don't say > even fixing bugs or submitting code) ...then don't expect anything from > Pharo. Pharo is open-source, free and it is build in the free time. > > And I think Pharo is not the only one....out there most of the languages > change a lot between versions, Python, blah. > > Cheers > > Mariano > > > >> >> Regards >> Ted >> >> On Wed, Apr 27, 2011 at 11:16 AM, Marcus Denker <[email protected]> >> wrote: >> > >> > On Apr 27, 2011, at 10:59 AM, Ted F.A. van Gaalen wrote: >> > >> >> Good morning Mariano >> >> >> >> This is something I wrote to Adrian Lienhard, >> >> when an image did not run, straight out of the box >> >> so to speak, because of VM differences >> >> Some thoughts about reliability, and, very important >> >> IMHO, upward compatibility. >> >> >> >> Thanks & Regards >> >> Ted >> >> >> >>>>> >> >> ? >> >> I did expect that, nota bene working with >> >> the Seaside supplied one-click image and >> >> the virtual machine supplied with it, >> >> provided on the Seaside.st site itself, >> >> that everything is (and remains) >> >> 100% upward compatible, >> >> no matter what VM is or will be used in the future. >> > >> > This is impossible and, in the end, not a good idea. >> > >> > We can not be compatible forever, was this would mean >> > that we can not improve anything. >> > >> > e.g. imagine someone would fix the VM to be better. >> > (e.g. a modern object format). >> > >> > Do you really request to then *not* do this change because >> > this VM could not run old images? (and new images would >> > not run on old VMs?). >> > >> > Do you want to have a Future or be compatible to the Past? >> > >> > Marcus >> > >> > >> > -- >> > Marcus Denker -- http://www.marcusdenker.de >> > INRIA Lille -- Nord Europe. Team RMoD. >> > >> > >> > >> > > > > -- > Mariano > http://marianopeck.wordpress.com > >
