+1000 for the future. Backward bug and bad design compatibility is a pain. Laurent
On Wed, Apr 27, 2011 at 11:59 PM, Casimiro de Almeida Barreto < [email protected]> wrote: > Em 27-04-2011 18:41, Jon Hancock escreveu: > > Stef, > > I'm with you!! Keep hacking away at Pharo and make it the cleanest, > > nicest Smalltalk environment. Backwards compat talk this early in > > Pharo's life is premature. Besides, one of Smalltalk's best features > > is discovery and refactoring. This makes it much easier to migrate > > and rewrite when things break. > > > > Thanks for all your work!! I'm only "playing" with pharo these days > > but keep looking for U.S. clients where I can plug it in. > > ~Jon > +1 here. > > Backwards compatibility would make sense only if there were widespread > use applications. Except for seaside I cannot mention (I'm not being > rude, neither willing to hurt feelings) other pharo/squeak artifact > that's used in a scale enough to demand back compat. Small scale > applications or stand alone solutions don't require updates/upgrades. > > I agree with Stef & others: the important thing at the moment is having > a platform. Pharo isn't it yet. At current pace it will be soon. When it > happens and people see the value to deliver mass solutions, then a > requirement for back compat will appear. > > It's interesting but many complaints about compatibility are done > regarding to packages that aren't even maintained anymore. And that > happens in part because of platform deficiencies pointed by Stef. > > My 0,99c here... > > CdAB > >
