Survey finally published etc
andreas.raab at gmx.de
Wed Jan 25 05:52:55 UTC 2006
tim Rowledge wrote:
> Here you are expressing the major problem in a group project-
> - You want everything else to stay the same so your massive changes can
> go ahead.
> - So does everyone else doing any work!
> We simply can't make any useful progress under such conditions. Forward
> progress causes breakage and it costs much effort to provide invisible
> mogration support. Spending time on that prevents forward progress -
> and puts people off ever bothering.
I don't believe that is true in general. I agree there are some changes
where backward compatibility is very hard (or basically impossible) but
for most of the changes that's not true. Generally, I've come to opt for
the "parallel subsystem approach" where you don't simply destroy an
existing subsystem just because you can but rather create a parallel
hierarchy of entities so that both subsystems can be loaded side by side.
For example, I hope that if we ever get a new set of Stream/File classes
they would be done in a way that the old classes could be loaded and
used side-by-side. For example, I hope that if we ever get a new
compiler, this would be done in a way that the old compiler can be
loaded and used side-by-side. For example, if we ever get a new set of
tools, I would hope that... etc.
More information about the Squeak-dev