[ic] "Interchange 6"? Really?
paul at gishnetwork.com
Thu Sep 29 20:39:31 UTC 2011
> 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
I meant with programming. It's only a fraction of my business. I love it - it's fun, but I am not going to stay married to it if it is going to turn into an ex wife (or husband) on me. I'd rather let it be someone elses problem.
> 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.
I understand and agree. Features and stability are implied. Backwards compatibility however is something I think we are all willing to pay for. So don't let cost delay that, just keep us informed of any plan and what it will take.
More information about the interchange-users