Yes sure , I agree, but why that does not apply to Pharo ?

I would not want to use Pharo libraries that get changed and redesigned in each version and I have to rewrite my code. I could not even imagine the nightmare scenario of having a big code base and a language that keep changing. Python broke compatibility from version 2 to version 3 and it was not a smooth ride for people, it took years for people to migrate and still there are a lot that are still using Python 2. The changes they made were not even that big and even offered a tool to automagically convert code from version 2 to version 3.��

What makes Pharo immune to this situation ? because the way I see it Pharo is not immune at all.��

On Tue, Feb 3, 2015 at 7:19 PM, Sean P. DeNigris <sean@clipperadams.com> wrote:

kilon.alios wrote
> If you mean something more than that, then I am open to other opinions as
> always :)

The only meaning I connected to C++ and Ruby were that they were
dogmatically and widely enough approved for use to be rigid by necessity.
Based on some of your comments, I assume I probably could have used Python
as an example of a language that got popular enough to expand beyond people
that truly "get it", and thus have significant push back to
non-backward-compatibility in the community.

-----
Cheers,
Sean
--
View this message in context: http://forum.world.st/Slides-from-the-Pharo-Status-talk-at-FOSDEM-2015-tp4803290p4803435.html

Sent from the Pharo Smalltalk Users mailing list archive at Nabble.com.