[biesnecker]

> No revisions to the architecture, ever.

I'd love to have this sort of confidence in my ability to foresee everyone's future needs, but I don't. I mean, I agree that having to do full rewrites every time your framework's version bumps, but promising no changes ever seems more constricting than necessary.

[jcormont]

Sure this is a major restriction but there are lots of systems out there with architectures that never changed. I think accepting major changes from framework authors is something we learnt over time, from projects with lots of people who have lots of ideas and the project ends up swinging in all directions.

[pknopf]

Just remember, coming out with a V2 that has no upgrade path, while still supporting and improving V1 and V2 doesn't count. ;)

[pier25]

Maybe it's not so much a problem related to future needs, than it is about discipline. Design an architecture for a framework, if the time comes when it doesn't work make a new framework instead of changing the architecture.

Look at jQuery. We are now in a new paradigm and jQuery hasn't changed, and should not change.

[preommr]

> No revisions to the architecture, ever. Code shouldn’t have to be completely rewritten to be compatible with the next major version of Typescene. We all have better things to do.

The full quote. Note the words "completely rewritten".

You're misrepresenting what the author said (arguably the lead in was slightly exaggerated or just poorly written) when you seem to agree that full rewrites are bad.