Quote:
Originally Posted by bloodline
There will be no flame war, you are welcome to your opinion and I have no intention of changing your mind. I was just offering an alternative view incase you hadn’t considered it.
|
I'm glad you see things this way.
Everyone's free to code like they want, right ?
Btw. It has already been more than considered : see link at post #7. Flame war ended up with thread split in half and the other half closed.
Quote:
Originally Posted by bloodline
I’m not sure it is off topic to discuss design decisions as to how AmigaOS’s original designers implemented their runtime OOP system. As you asked in your original question, which I think you were right to ask, and I was also curious!
|
Well, Boopsi looks great at first sight, and its objects are very easy to create and use. However existing objects look more like proofs of concept rather than actual objects designed for use in actual apps...
And creating a new object type does not look straightforward at all (merely creating it is, but the hook function is another story).
Quote:
Originally Posted by bloodline
It is not unheard of (certainly in the Apple world), for an OS update to break binary compatibility, usually offering developers a grace period where their software will still work, but expecting developers to update their software... often it needs little more than a recompile!
|
It has at least happened on AmigaOS already once, when OpenLibrary became OldOpenLibrary. But older programs should still work... unless they've been assembled with the name rather than the numeric value and got reassembled since. Nothing's fool proof in our big bad world.
It is unlikely, however, that a new AOS version will come that breaks compatibility. It would be rejected by the community.