Andreas Raab a écrit :

> 
> You're totally missing my point. Let's take one example from your list: 
> ToolBuilder. Let's say you've got some work that uses it, would you 
> really expect that in each new Squeak version you have to spend major 
> effort to port your code to the latest ToolBuilder version? Or wouldn't 
> you rather expect that there is a stable API that can be used and that 
> may be extended over time, or even broken, but if it's broken that you 
> may get some notice about it beforehand? Or, in particular when the 
> changes get really fundamental, that instead of modifying ToolBuilder 
> in-place you get the offer to use either ToolBuilder (working the way it 
> always did) and whatever the brand-new framework of the day is?
> 
> I'm curious but is my position in this discussion really so outrageous?

No, you get a very good point. API change is the nightmare of software 
developer. You just fell frustrated to spend time to re-write already 
done things. I remember experiencing such frustration with pre-2.0 Gnome 
libraries.
We may want to have cycle of stable API version of Squeak, inlcuded in 
the road-map.

Hilaire