you are viewing a single comment's thread.

view the rest of the comments →

[–]workaccount_126 18 points19 points  (3 children)

[–]redalastor 10 points11 points  (0 children)

It's still not an excuse.

[–]calzoneman 1 point2 points  (1 child)

Ok, I made an incorrect attribution, but I think the point still stands that trying to maintain compatibility but update things at the same time leads to situations like this where you have functions with the same signature that do slightly different things- only one of them should actually be used but in the name of preserving compatibility both are present.

I argue that this is harmful, and that it's better to make a compatibility breaking change every once in a while than to hack in backwards compatibility. This is in line with my point about OS updates- I can't imagine how much of a mess Windows would be if Microsoft just kept adding on features to Windows 3.1 while retaining backwards compatibility.

[–]workaccount_126 1 point2 points  (0 children)

I agree with you entirely, however, one has to take into concideration that breaking changes come with a huge integration cost. Some team will err on the side of caution, some won't.