Albert van der Horst <albert@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> wrote:
> Jonah Thomas <jethomas5@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> wrote:
>
> >If he keeps optimising, of course he'll keep starting over rather
> >than maintain compatibility with inferior approaches. Kind of like
> >Chuck does.
>
> ciforth can be considered an optimized version of figForth.
> It is possible to go on changing something bits by bits, and end up
> with something completely different. Compare mammals and amoeba's.
>
> The advantage of this way is that I can compare with a previous
> version and make sure that is better in a way that I wanted. Then I
> can compare with the do***entation of the previous version and make
> sure the change is fully do***ented. In a product system an approach
> like this is often liked better than Chucks way.
Yes, definitely. The longer you maintain backward compatibility the more
your users with a big codebase will like it.
Every time you change to something incompatible your users are
encouraged to stop and think. They have to switch to something new
anyway, do they want to switch to your new version or to something else
entirely?
Probably that will slow down innovation. But innovation has a cost, and
you don't have to pay that full cost as fast as you can.
