On Wed, Apr 27, 2011 at 11:47 AM, Ted F.A. van Gaalen <[email protected]>wrote:
> Thanks, > (I have mixed feelings about this, it's a sort of trade-off). > Exactly. So do I. And so do us. That's a trade-off. And notice that we do not break backward compatibility just because. There are usually reasons behind that which justify such decisions. And as Marcus said, most of the times (sometimes we had some problems) we have a deprecation process where we (usually) say which should be used instead. If large projects like Seaside, Moose, etc, could move from Pharo 1.0 up to Pharo 1.3, I think most applications can. The applications I have developed so far, has been ported from 1.0 to 1.3 almost without changes. > 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 > > > > > > -- Mariano http://marianopeck.wordpress.com
