Yes sure , I agree, but why that does not apply to Pharo ? I would not want to use Pharo libraries that get changed and redesigned in each version and I have to rewrite my code. I could not even imagine the nightmare scenario of having a big code base and a language that keep changing. Python broke compatibility from version 2 to version 3 and it was not a smooth ride for people, it took years for people to migrate and still there are a lot that are still using Python 2. The changes they made were not even that big and even offered a tool to automagically convert code from version 2 to version 3.
What makes Pharo immune to this situation ? because the way I see it Pharo is not immune at all. On Tue, Feb 3, 2015 at 7:19 PM, Sean P. DeNigris <s...@clipperadams.com> wrote: > kilon.alios wrote > > If you mean something more than that, then I am open to other opinions as > > always :) > > The only meaning I connected to C++ and Ruby were that they were > dogmatically and widely enough approved for use to be rigid by necessity. > Based on some of your comments, I assume I probably could have used Python > as an example of a language that got popular enough to expand beyond people > that truly "get it", and thus have significant push back to > non-backward-compatibility in the community. > > > > ----- > Cheers, > Sean > -- > View this message in context: > http://forum.world.st/Slides-from-the-Pharo-Status-talk-at-FOSDEM-2015-tp4803290p4803435.html > Sent from the Pharo Smalltalk Users mailing list archive at Nabble.com. > >
