>SNIP
>>
>>Supporting backward compatibility was the greatest mistake. It forced to keep lot of old stuff, most likely making source bulky and hard to maintain. It is nice to have 5 ways to do the same thing, but if 3 of them are pretty old and unusable then it does not make sense.
>
>Really?
>You've seen the source and assessed the high cost of maintaining such compatability?
>
>You are a lucky (and rare) person to have done so.

I said 'most likely'. It indicated some sort of assumption. It was reported here by people who were lucky (and rare) that source code does not look nicely.