Justin Henzie <[email protected]> writes: > I agree with the sentiment of not taking this too lightly. I think > you underestimate how significant weblocks is and how many people are > monitoring its progress. > > Many of us are interested in building apps with Weblocks, just because > we don't post regularly doesn't mean we are not interested parties.
I was joking -- I'm sorry if that came out too harsh. I don't take this lightly at all, but I still think the current user base is very small and most of these people are bulding apps, not servicing something that has been deployed. The response to the recent poll about deployed weblocks apps attests to that. If you're still working on your application, it isn't such a big problem to modify it to fit new interfaces. There might be a day when we'll write a compatibility layer for the 1000 or so deployed applications -- but that day is not today. So, in my opinion, this is still a great time to do backwards incompatible major redesigns if they are needed. It will be much worse as we move on and these things will become much harder. Also, I believe there is always place for major changes, in experimental branches (such as my branches on github). I don't know about other people, but I never get a good design unless I try at least twice [1]. And I don't think we should make design compromises just because changes would break apps. --J. [1] Fred Brooks got it right. --~--~---------~--~----~------------~-------~--~----~ You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "weblocks" group. To post to this group, send email to [email protected] To unsubscribe from this group, send email to [email protected] For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/weblocks?hl=en -~----------~----~----~----~------~----~------~--~---
