Linked by Thom Holwerda on Fri 4th Apr 2008 20:07 UTC
Thread beginning with comment 308376
To view parent comment, click here.
To read all comments associated with this story, please click here.
To view parent comment, click here.
To read all comments associated with this story, please click here.
News
Linked by Thom Holwerda on 05/25/13 0:45 UTC
Linked by Thom Holwerda on 05/24/13 23:59 UTC
Linked by Thom Holwerda on 05/24/13 22:33 UTC
Linked by Howard Fosdick on 05/24/13 21:41 UTC
Linked by Thom Holwerda on 05/24/13 14:44 UTC
Linked by Thom Holwerda on 05/23/13 23:22 UTC
Linked by Thom Holwerda on 05/23/13 22:04 UTC
Linked by Thom Holwerda on 05/23/13 22:01 UTC
Linked by Thom Holwerda on 05/23/13 17:52 UTC
Linked by Thom Holwerda on 05/22/13 22:23 UTC
More News »
Sponsored Links



Member since:
2005-10-09
Ever heard of Solaris?
Stability of interfaces doesn't necessitate not moving forward. Look at Solaris 10 vs. Solaris 2.6. You can still run binaries from 2.6 on 10.
That said, because of horrid programming (and horrid programmers who didn't spend the time to DESIGN before implementing), changes that break backwards compatibility are/were necessary in Windows.
I wish they had just thrown it all out and started anew, keeping the good and ditching *all* the bad. They'd have still gotten horrible reviews, but at least there would have been a good reason behind it.
PS - Say what you will about Sun/Solaris, but a lot of programmers could learn something from their design standards. I'm sure we'll see a non-backwards compatible Solaris in the future, it will be a necessary evil - but they've done pretty damn well for having a decade+ of compatibility at the binary level.