might compatibility become a *goal*?

[GerritM]

"Tom Loredo" <loredo at astro.cornell.edu> schreef in bericht
news:3CEE88FB.FD07C690 at astro.cornell.edu...
>
> My impression, as a heavy user since 1.5.2, is that the Python dev
> crew have bent over backwards to maintain backward compatibility
> in the sense of having old code run under new versions, and have
> also been very cautious and conservative regarding adding new
> features that would prevent new code from running under old versions.
> Having watched the discussion surrounding many of these choices
> over the past 3 years or so, I have to say that I am extremely
> impressed by the insight and wisdom shown by the developers as
> a community.  Sometimes it has taken me a while to appreciate
> their reasoning, but I can't think of a case where I didn't
> come to agree with them, if not immediately, then at least after
> living with the change a while.
>
> I think for this discussion to be useful, you need to distinguish
> between the meanings of "backwards compatibility" and be specific
> about any changes that have bothered you.
>
> -Tom Loredo
I fully agree, a generic discussion about (backward) compatibility does not
provide any useful insight. Only specific objectives and specific actual
(versus academical) problems provides insight in seemingly conflicting
interests and often result in creative and elegant solutions (although some
compromises creep in).

regards Gerrit

--
www.extra.research.philips.com/natlab/sysarch