Even though this is a bit off-topic, Rails didn't arbitrarily break
things. Developers who use Rails use the code: it's exposed, we
manipulate it, and it's what we use in our applications. Therefore,
it's in the best interest of everyone involved if Rails cuts out the
cruft while pushing towards better solutions. If someone wants to
keep using old feature, they're welcome to keep using the version of
Rails they're using.
I would hate to end up with a 35MB framework that could easily be 2MB
or less but has kept so much stuff around in the interest of backwards
compatibility.
--Jeremy
On Jan 2, 2008 3:20 PM, fredistic <
fredistic@...> wrote:
>
> Breaking backward compatibility is a luxury that only open-source
> developers can afford. It costs nothing to lose customers if they
> aren't paying. If you need to maintain your customer base (like, for
> example, Microsoft does) then you do anything to avoid breaking
> backward compatibility.
>
> See for example:
http://blogs.msdn.com/oldnewthing/archive/2006/11/06/999999.aspx>
> I personally was quite shocked to see that Rails 2 knowingly broke
> things. Extracting to a plugin I can deal with. Outright removal is
> shocking.
>
> fredistic
>
>
> >
>
--
http://www.jeremymcanally.com/My books:
Ruby in Practice
http://www.manning.com/mcanally/My free Ruby e-book
http://www.humblelittlerubybook.com/My blogs:
http://www.mrneighborly.com/http://www.rubyinpractice.com/--~--~---------~--~----~------------~-------~--~----~
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Ruby on Rails: Talk" group.
To post to this group, send email to
rubyonrails-talk@...
To unsubscribe from this group, send email to
rubyonrails-talk-unsubscribe@...
For more options, visit this group at
http://groups.google.com/group/rubyonrails-talk?hl=en-~----------~----~----~----~------~----~------~--~---
