On 24 Oct 2013, at 18:32, Levente Uzonyi <le...@elte.hu> wrote: > On Thu, 24 Oct 2013, Philippe Marschall wrote: > >> On 22.10.13 00:08, Camillo Bruni wrote: >>> see my long explanation here >>> https://pharo.fogbugz.com/default.asp?11876#87218 >>> it looks unsuspicous until the moment you try understand such a failing >>> assertion. >> >> This isn't moving Pharo foward. This doesn't make the system any more >> flexible, adaptable, modular or malleable. This doesn't make the system any >> easier to maintain. This doesn't make the system any smaller, faster, >> scalable or secure. This doesn't make the system any easier to maintain. >> This doesn't make life easier for anybody developing Pharo or using Pharo. >> This doesn't improve Pharo in any way. >> >> This only adds code who's sole purpose is to break people's existing code. > > <rant> > It's part of the Pharo manifesto: "Not backward compatible" > </rant> >
And I still think that this was the best decision we ever took. It will allow us to have a future. Marcus