Yes, I guess there's no more option but to agree to disagree, which is fine and I totally respect your decision as this is your software which of course I'm delighted with.Like I said, I don't really remember why we decided not to implement this, but in a more general sense, I don't agree with any of that. Backwards compatibility is ALWAYS important to us, including breaking any features that are "deprecated". They are deprecated and not removed for this very reason. We will never, ever do anything to hurt backwards compatibility on purpose. That is rule one for us.
That doesn't mean things can't be added, or that things can't be changed. It does mean that any addition or change has to pass the test of "will this change the behavior of Rainmeter in such a way as to break an older skin?"
As I have stated before, sure there are going to be things like weather sites or media players or even Windows features that may cause an older skin to break. We regret that but certainly can't do anything about it other than helping you guys to fix the skins when they break. But in general, we consider the gigantic world of existing skins, new AND old, to be our greatest asset. The very first skin written for Rainmeter, "Tranquil" still works as well on v4.5.21 as it did on v0.14.
We have very limited development resources, so we can't always get things added that we might like, but we welcome additions and changes to Rainmeter. We consider all suggestions and are happy to see cool new ideas. Hey, learn C++ and feel free to do pull requests in GitHub with new features you would like!
However, while anyone is welcome to feel different about backwards compatibility with Rainmeter, those of us who write the code, and maintain the sites, and provide support to our users, will never agree. Never.
Thanks for the invitation to learn C++. Maybe I will at some point and will be happy to bring ideas to the table. However I'm still learning lua which I guess is a good start for a total code newbie like me.
That being said, my state about time is more under the reasoning (and ignorance) that maybe in 10 years there are new ways to do it without necessarily breaking old functionality. Hence why I thought it could be worth to re-explore the why it wasn't viable 10 years ago and the possibility of doing it some other way.
Anyway, thanks for reading me as always
. It's really appreciated.Statistics: Posted by RicardoTM — Yesterday, 7:15 am — Replies 10 — Views 1698