Re: re: Flow integration
Ian Piumarta <[email protected]>
| Newsgroups | gmane.comp.lang.smalltalk.squeak.foundation |
|---|---|
| Message-ID | <[email protected]> |
On Sat, 23 Nov 2002 [email protected] wrote: > Just for the record: I generally do *not* think that > backwardscompatibility is that important - I want Squeak to evolve as > "fast" as possible! Ignoring backwards compatibility might allow you to evolve a little faster than if you took it into account. OTOH, backwards compatibility gives you a much better chance of early adoption of your evolved code by a far larger number of users -- which means your evolved code will be stress tested and debugged a lot sooner. The additional time spent making it backwards compatible might actually _reduce_ the overall time needed to get your evolved code to production quality. Mike's comparison with Apple's APIs is a little misleading here since Apple were dealing with a huge code base and large, unweildy APIs. In the case of Sockets the additional work and complexity involved with backwards compatibility is significantly smaller. > But please let us stop talking about choosing one before the other - > let's aim at having them > *both* as packages so people can pick and choose. That is after all what > we want, right? Precisely. (At least, that's what I would want. ;) BTW, Craig: can we currently connect an AsyncFile to a flow `endpoint' and use streaming protocols to talk to it? Ian