Re: can I depend on stable PEAR classes to not change?

On Tue, 24 Aug 2004 19:10:36 -0400, Greg Beaver <greg@chiaraquartet.net> wrote: > > Perhaps, but the fact that you are ignoring the part of my message where > I describe the incredible amount of energy, collective and personally, > that has gone into fixing the problems you've experienced for all future > packages leads me to believe that there is nothing I can say or do to > make you happy. > Thank you for all your hard work! I am all for anything that can be done to keep people from breaking BC. Sorry if I come across as disgruntled-- I felt like I lost a ton of my work when QuickForm 3 came out and I have never really gotten over it <grin> > How much time have you saved versus time you have lost using PEAR > packages? If you could have coded a custom solution in less time than > it took to implement (and work around problems) in PEAR packages, then > you are probably right, you chose the wrong package. > As time goes on, more and more I feel like writing most everything from scratch might be the way to go... Now, when I investigate external libraries for use in my applications I like to see a package that hasn't had a major release in the last 6-12 months. It seems a little counterintuitive to like static code, but libraries should be more or less static. Like Mail_Mime-- last release on 2002-07-27! Perfect-- that is what I am looking for in a library. DB has also done an excellent job. Code I wrote against DB 1.2 still works today with 1.6.5. > You could always rely on Microsoft products. They are happy to take > away all of your money to give you products that are twice as buggy and > closed-source so that any bugs you find are your own tough luck. Whoops. > I left the Microsft camp as .NET was ramping up for *exactly* this reason. They take changing APIs to a whole new level-- forget changing the API they are changing the whole platform! culley