Posted by
Jim Quinn-2 on
Dec 14, 2009; 9:33pm
URL: http://imagej.273.s1.nabble.com/Re-Laseray-contributions-ImageJ-tp3690010.html
[hidden email] re: 100% backwards compatibility
As a lurker and enduser for many years, I would like
to see very high (99%+) backward compatibility.
Evolution, not revolution, is what got NIHImage and ImageJ
to the high utility that it enjoys today.
Thank you Wayne and company...............
regards,
JQuinn
> Sender: ImageJ Interest Group <
[hidden email]>
> From: Raymond Martin <
[hidden email]>
> Subject: Re: ImageJ development involvement/contributions
> To:
[hidden email]
>
> Hi David,
>
> > So, why can't we have 100% backward compatibility?
> >
> > Are changes that would preclude this really all that necessary?
>
> The reason is that it is impossible to know how to make something 100%
> backwards compatible without doing experiments first. Nobody knows exactly
> what the functionality is yet, therefore there is no way to determine if full
> backwards compatibility is possible.
>
> Moving forward in software is a process of discovery, plus in another few
> years, 5 or 10 maybe, reinvention of at least some parts of the program will
> have to be done again because that is the nature of computer science/software
> engineering, domains that are still very much in their infancy. It is just
> going to keep moving and changing. And users are going to want newer,
> better functionality due to the needs of the domains they are applying the
> application to.
>
> So it is really about how the need for change is handled and not about whether
> it is needed.
>
> Raymond
>