[erlang-questions] : Was Re: Bug ?! now Erlang comment (LONG LONG)
Fri Oct 27 11:03:53 CEST 2006
On Fri, Oct 27, 2006 at 10:13:06AM +0200, Bengt Kleberg wrote:
> On 2006-10-26 23:35, wrote:
> > I can continue, but it would be more interesting to also read some
> > arguments from users who are pro maintaining backwards compatibility.
> perhaps the users that are _really_ interested in backwards
> compatibility are not on the list?
> i would imagine (speculation) that large commercial users that pay for
> erlang are more into backwards compatibility, and less into
> as always, i could be wrong.
I think you are sooo right.
If there is _ANY_ suspicion a new release would cause _ANY_ upgrade
problems the customers paying most of our salaries will _NOT_ take
the new release and we will be stuck maintaining the old release
forever, adding new features from new releases when they desire;
essentially forking Erlang/OTP into two.
And that is something we do not need.
> EPO guidelines 1978: "If the contribution to the known art resides
> solely in a computer program then the subject matter is not
> patentable in whatever manner it may be presented in the claims."
> erlang-questions mailing list
/ Raimo Niskanen, Erlang/OTP, Ericsson AB
More information about the erlang-questions