[ic] "Interchange 6"? Really?

Jon Jensen jon at endpoint.com
Thu Sep 29 20:25:16 UTC 2011

On Thu, 29 Sep 2011, Paul Jordan wrote:

> I'll admit I am probably a little more sensitive to this than others, 
> because I just-so-happen-to-be in the midst of a complete rewrite of our 
> systems.

I doubt that you're a special case here -- I understand exactly what 
you're concerned about. All of us core developers are very sensitive to 
it, which is why Interchange 5 has kept such a high level of backward 
compatibility all these years, in spite of it being in need of an 

> If there cannot be a bridge, I'd have to seriously consider our future.

I'm not sure what you mean by "seriously consider our future", because any 
web framework you choose is going to have the exact same problems or 
worse. It is simply the way the world is. Different frameworks and new 
versions of frameworks have incomptabile changes, and progress requires 
them to, or we'd all still be using straight CGI scripts in Perl 4 with no 
modules, no nested data structures, no DBI, etc.

Anyway, there's no reason to fret. Many of us won't want to use 
Interchange 6 without some kind of coexistence with Interchange 5. But 
despite all that, Interchange 5 is no less usable today just because we're 
talking about Interchange 6.


Jon Jensen
End Point Corporation

More information about the interchange-users mailing list