[PD] Cyclone issues update

[katja]

On Mon, Dec 7, 2015 at 9:14 PM, Alexandre Torres Porres
<porres at gmail.com> wrote:
> Great & Awesome, Thanks!
>
> But please allow me to make a suggestion and start a discussion.

[snip]

> I'm fine in having some flexibility and not having the exact same
> functionality as in max, we could have other functionalities/features, so
> having two outlets could be meeting halfway - I just tend to criticize this
> need to maintain features and behaviours that emerged from mistakes and then
> adding other stuff around it and making it more complicating than just
> fixing it.
>
> Anyway, those are my thoughts on it, anybody else?

In my view backward compatibility should be taken very serious in the
case of any Pd class. I find it really annoying when classes change
their behavior for anything other than a very compelling reason.
Here's why: among the people who use Pd patches that we distribute,
not everyone is so much aware of details discussed on Pd list, and
then they don't know why a patch breaks.

You wouldn't believe how long a broken patch stays around. I've found
the broken version of my patch SliceJockey on many people's computers,
even months or years after I had uploaded a fixed version.

Hence my opinion: don't break backward compatibility unless you really
must, like when a class produces incorrect mathematical results.

Katja