Mathias Bauer wrote: > > well, Win32 is only one platform, > :-) It's the platform of the overwhelming majority of our users. > Hi Mathias,
well, the question of *how* overwhelming the majority is, that's indeed interesting (though largely off-topic here, I fear) - what might be the number of desktop Linux users? Estimates range between 15 and 30 millions, and pretty much all of them have OOo installed. What's the current tally of Win32 OOo downloads? > As far as I'm concerned, I'm making software for users, not for ends in > themselves. So for me there is some sense in trying to keep extensions > working as long as the pain for the developers is bearable. We decided > that it's about time to take some pain from the developers, but that > doesn't mean that we should give up compatibility completely. > Granted. And I'm convinced an overwhelming majority of the people here are not doing software "for ends in themselves". > > and experience tells that in general, c++ extension *do* break between > > releases. > No, exactly that is not my experience, not with our careful handling of > baselines and backwards compatibility. If am using a very sophisticated > Windows C++ extension that was made for OOo 1.x and it is still running > well with OOo3. > I buy that. But as I said elsewhere, in my book there's a fundamental difference between c++ extensions and e.g. Java- or Python-based ones: it is *much* easier to break compatibility for c++ extensions, and handling them suck when dealing with cross-platform extensions. Given all that, I believe their use should be discouraged, and they should have less weight when it comes to deciding for or against a change that would affect c++ extensions alone. Cheers, -- Thorsten --------------------------------------------------------------------- To unsubscribe, e-mail: [email protected] For additional commands, e-mail: [email protected]
