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
