On Mon, 2009-06-29 at 13:29 -0700, Ramon Leon wrote:
> Stéphane Rollandin wrote:
> >> Progress and backwards compatibility are fundamentally opposing 
> >> forces, those insisting on backwards compatibility are the ones 
> >> preventing progress. 
> > 
> > Because they are opposing forces, we need to balance them. What you say 
> > could be completed with: those insisting in progress are the ones 
> > preventing actual software to be implemented.
> 
> Yes, and in Squeak, they are completely unbalanced, those wanting things 
> to stay the same have won out over any major progress.  The eToys thing 
> is a perfect example, it should have been ripped out a long time ago, 
> the eToy community already forked.  The Squeak version is dead, and 
> should have been removed but illogical resistance to change prevented it.
> 
> > What is the point of progress if you can't harvest it ? Don't you see 
> > the drawbacks of a permanently moving target ?
> > 
> > Stef
> 
> If you can't break compatibility, there is no progress, there is only 
> stagnation.  The whole point of a version is to be able to break 
> compatibility with previous versions, to make breaking changes, to 
> correct mistakes of the past and make progress.  Harvesting is the wrong 
> approach, it only works for small changes.  You don't harvest big 
> rewrites, you upgrade to a new image and reload your code fix whatever 
> your unit tests determine is now broken.
> 
> The idea of an ever evolving monolithic image that is continually 
> patched into being current is just dead or dying.  What works today is a 
> small core image and loadable packages with unit tests so images can be 
> rebuilt anytime, especially between versions.  Unmaintained packages 
> *should* die.
> 
> No one is forced to upgrade to the new version, if someone wants 
> compatibility, they shouldn't upgrade.  If they want the latest and 
> greatest, then porting their code to newer versions and fixing what they 
> broke is the price they pay, it must be that way necessarily.  Otherwise 
> there is no point in having new versions.
> 
> The drawbacks of a moving target are much less severe than the drawbacks 
> of a stagnant and dying community which will be the end results of a 
> attitude of not allowing breaking changes and progress.  People keep 
> forking Squeak because the Squeak community is utterly directionless and 
> resistant to change because that's the nature of any organization led by 
> a committee elected by diverse groups of people who don't share a common 
> goal.
> 
> Pharo is what Squeak should have been, a place for people who actually 
> do the work to build what they want and not be held back by those who 
> don't and just have strong opinions and don't want things to ever 
> change.  The people actually doing the work should be the only people 
> with any final say about what does or doesn't get done and what 
> direction things should go.  The only way to challenge the removal of 
> old, bad, or dead code should be to volunteer to step up and maintain it.
> 
I didn't want to participate at all in this thread but reading your post
I feel the need to fully agree.

over and out,

Norbert