On Sat, 2012-09-15 at 16:24 +0200, Alex Rønne Petersen wrote: […] > You can't really do this "carefully". One way or another, you're going > to break *tons* of code by removing null references.
Code is not broken by a breaking change in a compiler, using the wrong compiler causes the differences to be exhibited. If people do not wish to go with the breaking change, they do not need to move to the "broken" compiler. There are still people using Java 1.4 because they thing all the changes in Java 5 were language breakages. The same will happen with Java 8. Many people consider Python 3 to be a breaking change too far, and will be sticking with 2.7 — or some will still continue to stay with 2.5 since the changes introduced by 2.6 are, to them, a breakage too far. Pre C++11 and post C++11 is another example. Many people will though manage carefully the evolution of their code with that of their chosen compilation tool chain. Personally I amend my codes to fit the latest version: Java 8, Python 3.3, gcc 4.8, d 2.120, etc. Nothing wrong with planned breaking changes in compilation system as long as people know when they are coming and what the breakages are. -- Russel. ============================================================================= Dr Russel Winder t: +44 20 7585 2200 voip: sip:[email protected] 41 Buckmaster Road m: +44 7770 465 077 xmpp: [email protected] London SW11 1EN, UK w: www.russel.org.uk skype: russel_winder
signature.asc
Description: This is a digitally signed message part
