3 ms·
Completely agree. I wrote against Symfony 1.0 and the upgrade to 1.4 needed a partial rewrite (look, new form library!). I wrote against Symfony 1.4 and the u
by porker 13y ago
Completely agree.
I wrote against Symfony 1.0 and the upgrade to 1.4 needed a partial rewrite (look, new form library!).
I wrote against Symfony 1.4 and the upgrade to 2.X ..well hasn't happened, a recession got in the way and clients want to spend money on something that'll have results.
I don't mind legacy code - heck I make a good living from it. But I wish framework developers (and everyone online) would agree that slower, more evolutionary progress is OK.
-- A cynical developer, who's seen fads come and go too many times
- MAGZine 13y agothankfully symfony 2.3 is LTS now. the thing about frameworks is that you don't get the goodies unless if you upgrade, but you wouldn't get the goodies anyhow unless if you wrote it yourself. It's a tradeoff, but usually a worthy one.
- aryastark 13y agoframeworks and everything, say, post-2003 has been a tragic joke on our profession. We deserve better, but everything JWZ says here is the norm: http://www.jwz.org/doc/cadt.html http://www.jwz.org/doc/cadt.html. Even the majors, like Google, are doing this today. Quality down, fads up.
- petervandijck 13y agoThen just don't upgrade. It's not obligatory :)