On Tue, Feb 10, 2009 at 4:57 AM, Stan Schymanski <schym...@gmail.com> wrote: > > +1 for maintaining backwards compatibility as much as practically possible. > > Mathematica 5.2, probably considered a mature program, was upgraded to > Mathematica 6.0 and broke most of my code. This gave me the final > incentive to look for alternatives as I would have to spend hours and > hours to fix my old code and understand the new syntax, anyway. That's > how I found SAGE. If SAGE started to break code with every release and > require hours of work just to get the old code to work again, I would > become very frustrated, and possibly a range of others that use SAGE for > their day-to-day work, too. So please, please, try to minimise the > amount of work needed to port people's code to new versions of SAGE. I > know, it's a cost/benefit consideration and I don't have a good > apprehension of the costs, but I wanted to add my 2 cents to the > benefits of maintaining backward compatibility.
You have been using Sage for about a year now, or more. In your opinion, how are we doing so far regarding breaking or not breaking *your* code with each new release of Sage? When your code does break, how responsive have we been. -- William --~--~---------~--~----~------------~-------~--~----~ To post to this group, send email to sage-devel@googlegroups.com To unsubscribe from this group, send email to sage-devel-unsubscr...@googlegroups.com For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/sage-devel URLs: http://www.sagemath.org -~----------~----~----~----~------~----~------~--~---
