[ic] "Interchange 6"? Really?

[Paul Jordan]

> 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
> overhaul.
>
> > 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.

 

 

Paul