I can say with 100% confidence it is the latter, having spoken to a few of them. I don’t envy them: it’s a tough financial decision to go back and rewrite complex planes into another language and technology. I’m sure there’s a boatload of display code still sitting on GDI+ and Direct2D, for example. They’re stuck between a rock and a hard place: either burn money rewriting planes, or burn money waiting for the legacy code support to reach parity.
I don’t fault them for complaining in this case: it puts pressure on MS and Asobo via the community to add resources to the legacy C++ side of the SDK.
That being said, I do really hope that they can get onboard; we’re a ragtag group of freeware devs working in our spare time and look at how much got done in a small handful of months. Imagine what folks working on this full time could do with the new technology.
We’ve had a little bit of breakage here and there during updates, mostly related to existing stock CJ4 code that hasn’t yet been removed. But the APIs by and large have been very stable and haven’t changed underneath us. I’m not sure this house of quicksand analogy necessarily applies here, but I can understand how what has been said by folks in the past might make it appear that way.
-Matt