|
|
|
|
|
by TillE
5074 days ago
|
|
When there's a clear benefit, that's great. Feel free to scrap backwards compatibility when there's significant progress to be made in doing so. This feels a lot more like a "color of the bike shed" choice. There are use cases where the new behavior makes sense, sure, but there are also plenty of cases where the old way is better. This isn't an upgrade, it's a lateral move. |
|
You basically imply that this change is not big enough to warrant a break with backwards compatibility, but small discontinuities and hacks add up. If thinks like this aren't fixed every once in a while the system will be ridden with inconsistencies.
Besides, even though it hurts when you've inherited some crazy unreadable code that utilizes some obsoleted functionality I think it is always positive for the code quality when the chaos monkey comes around and breaks something.
edit: the downvote button is to indicate I am detrimental to the discussion, the reply button is for when you disagree with me :)