On Wed, 16 Aug 2006 09:41:08 +0200, Andreas Raab wrote:
> Lukas Renggli wrote:
>> The following presentation of Gilad Bracha might be interesting to
>> read, especially the end of the presentation where it says: "Rotting
>> Bits for a better World -- A model which expects incompatibility as a
>> matter of course is better than denying change."
>>      http://www.bracha.org/oopsla05-dls-talk.pdf

Lukas, can't you see the contradiction here: a change, if it is worth the  
name, always breaks compatibility. Else it would be an enhancement  
(exactly the same interface but "performs" "better") or a new feature (new  
in the sense of "never used that interface before").

If it's not a new feature and not an enhancement, the implication is that  
it *must* break compatibility ;-)

So I have to judge Andreas' suggestion on how to interface FFI as an  
enhancement and your suggestion as an incompatibility (of course a  
resolution would be to have old+new interfaces in parallel for a while).

> As usual, a thought-provoking presentation from Gilad. He is certainly  
> right that being prepared for change instead of denying it is the better  
> strategy - whether that means to entirely drop having any negotiated  
> interfaces however, stands very much to reason. Personally, I find that  
> a necessary requirement to be able to deal with change.

[OT] I wouldn't say that to be prepared for change has something to do  
with thought-provoking. Just with a reminder.

/Klaus

> Cheers,
>    - Andreas
>
>