I think you mean "inherently" rather than "implicitly": Allan has been pretty explicit about why he considers a complete rewrite a good thing.
Assuming that's what you meant: I don't think anyone suggests that complete rewrites are inherently proper. It depends on a host of factors, and the pile of failed rewrites in the world is a testament to the risk involved.
In any case, examining what "people" are clamoring for is not necessarily the best way to make decisions. Before TextMate 1 had been released, no one was looking for anything quite like it. When you send tools into the world, it's impossible to tell before hand what will be done with them, and I don't think you should dismiss the introduction of substantial new features (so substantial that they couldn't be built on the previous architecture) with a hand-wave like "most people" not wanting something "totally different".
Assuming that's what you meant: I don't think anyone suggests that complete rewrites are inherently proper. It depends on a host of factors, and the pile of failed rewrites in the world is a testament to the risk involved.
In any case, examining what "people" are clamoring for is not necessarily the best way to make decisions. Before TextMate 1 had been released, no one was looking for anything quite like it. When you send tools into the world, it's impossible to tell before hand what will be done with them, and I don't think you should dismiss the introduction of substantial new features (so substantial that they couldn't be built on the previous architecture) with a hand-wave like "most people" not wanting something "totally different".