Subject:
|
Backwards Compatibility (Was Calling all Meta-commands)
|
Newsgroups:
|
lugnet.cad.dev
|
Date:
|
Sat, 15 Mar 2003 03:46:38 GMT
|
Viewed:
|
1456 times
|
| |
|
|
In lugnet.cad.dev, Tim Courtney writes:
> I think you could ask almost anyone here and they would say
> backwards-compatibility is a must. That isn't a bad thing, so long as we
> build a framework for legitimate advancement of the format in the future.
I agree the backward compatibility is good, to a point. This is especially
true for the parts library. Too many times we refuse to fix something or
extend the file spec (e.g. new colors not able to be represented by existing
color numbers) simply because we worry about backward compatibility. I've
said this before and I'll say it again:
It's time to abandon the old DOS LEdit and LDraw as our standard.
What are we going to do when DOS support in PC OS's goes away completely?
We need to move on to bigger and better ideas. Sure revamping the spec may
make it more complicated but this will lead to a more functional and
powerful system of tools.
Please take these statements for what thet are worth, food for thought and
not blind dogma.
....
Time for me to get off the soapbox before I cause more trouble.
-Orion
|
|
Message has 2 Replies:
Message is in Reply To:
 | | Re: Calling all Meta-commands
|
| (...) Yes. (...) I think we'll see coming out of this discussion something that will prevent the meta-command chaos we've seen for the past years. No one here is talking about a new file format, or new version of a spec - yet. First we need to fully (...) (21 years ago, 15-Mar-03, to lugnet.cad.dev)
|
154 Messages in This Thread:
(Inline display suppressed due to large size. Click Dots below to view.)
- Entire Thread on One Page:
- Nested:
All | Brief | Compact | Dots
Linear:
All | Brief | Compact
This Message and its Replies on One Page:
- Nested:
All | Brief | Compact | Dots
Linear:
All | Brief | Compact
|
|
|
|
