Hi --

On Sat, 28 Jan 2006, Sean E. Russell wrote:

> Personally, I think that breaking legacy code is the *worst* kind of breakage.
> You'll have server apps that people installed ages ago running on servers
> sitting in closets that have been walled over, that have for years quietly
> been doing their jobs so well that people have forgetton that they existed,
> except as an IP on the subnet.

What's a good antonym for "agile"? :-)

> And they suddenly stop working... and I
> guarantee that it won't be obvious to most people what caused the breakage,
> because the people doing the upgrades aren't the ones responsible for the
> apps.  It will be an especially obscure problem for people who hired
> contractors who secretly used Ruby for some part (or all) of an application,
> and then left and moved to Albuquerque.  Some consultants actually *like*
> this sort of thing: the phone rings, an old client in a panic, and dollar
> signs dancing like proverbial sugar plums... but I would be embarrassed by
> it.

It's an issue, but ultimately I think the constituency that should be
served by the language, as the language evolves, is the constituency
of people who have access to their machines and can update things,
make conscious decisions about what to install, etc.  Once you start
getting into things like the ethics of consultants, it's going to be
impossible on a consistent or long-term basis for the language to do
anything one way or the other.

I've always understood the situation to be that Matz wants to break as
little as possible before 2.0, and as much as possible all at the same
time when 2.0 comes out.

> In addition to Matz, I'd most particularly like to hear from the various Daves
> in the group.  I find that the Daves' opinions are often worth paying
> attention to.  Any suggestions are greatly appreciated.

I'm more of a David but I'll pipe up anyway :-)


David

-- 
David A. Black
dblack / wobblini.net

"Ruby for Rails", from Manning Publications, coming May 1, 2006!
http://www.manning.com/books/black