On Fri, 7 Jan 2005, Matt Kettler wrote: > Hmm, as a user that makes sense. As a programmer, it does not. There's > nothing like adding "backward compatibility" kludges to add bugs to your > code. Bugs mean extra work for the developers, work that could be better > spent fighting spam.
I guess it's just a difference in philosophy and attitude. On software projects I code, I leave backwards compatibility in if possible. Most of the time its very simple and never a kludge. Of course I design my code cleanly so backwards compat is rarely a kludge. I havent looked at SA code but I would hope it's written well enough that backwards compat for such a simple option isn't hard. If its too hard, then it would indicate a problem with the design. Again, this philosophy of not supporting backwards compat where it is easy to do will just hurt in the long run, like it is hurting php, apache, perl, and other projects. Often, not supporting backwards compat for old stuff means you will not get the critical mass and support required for users to embrace your new stuff. I hope SA doesnt embrace this philosophy. You want more users to be using the new versions, not less. -Dan
