From: Rafael L. <lab...@ps...> - 2003-10-13 19:33:31
|
* Alan W. Irwin <ai...@us...> [2003-10-13 12:08]: > On 2003-10-13 16:13+0200 Rafael Laboissiere wrote: > > > I would be opposed to any such dramatic change in the API. Actually, I am > > opposed to any change that makes the API backward incompatible, even the > > smallest one. Backward incompatibility is a headache for everybody and > > should be avoided at any price. > > That "at any price" remark sticks in my craw. I am sure glad Linus does not > have this attitude toward new developments of the Linux kernel, and I am > also glad historically we have also not had this attitude. You would end up > with dead kernel development and dead PLplot development, and that is not a > price I am willing to pay. > > [...] You misunderstood me. I was talking about *_backward incompatibility_*, not about improvements in the API. Of course, improvements or additions (which imply changes) should and must be done, otherwise the project would die as you pointed out. However, we have to try hard to avoid *_breaking_* the API in a backward way. In almost all the cases it is possible to find a way to improve the API but keeping the backward compatibility. Is it clear now? -- Rafael |