I dislike it was made with as clickbait - but on the other hand I probably wouldn't have read the entire thing otherwise... so I'll tolerate it this time!<p>TL;DR:<p>The breaking changes only occur in rare, isolated, and "who would even do that?" scenarios.<p>My opinion on the matter:<p>I've always had a huge dislike for (most) cases of backwards compatibility when it sacrifices potential progress to avoid breaking things of the past. Why should everyone be dragged down instead of others forced to improve?<p>It saddens me that backwards compatibility and "reaching the largest audience" is the reasons for this: marketing. A 'reliable' tool that isn't going to break all your old code 3 releases later is more likely to be used for production to avoid maintenance/rewriting of legacy code.<p>So I know "why" - but dislike that that is how things work.