Linked by Hadrien Grasland on Tue 24th May 2011 14:38 UTC, submitted by Debjit
Thread beginning with comment 474442
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.
The arbitrariness doesn't bug you? At least the date gives us an idea of the age.
And with the "age" part one might get the idea that MySoftware 2008 running in 2011 is: old, outdated, obsolete etc.. But that could all be false ideas. Maybe the software is just plain rock solid due to 20 years of development history - thus no bugs and no new releases are needed.
Now if they used major.minor version numbers, you don't get that false sense of outdated software.
As for your comparison with cars... well cars age year-on-year. They get used and abused, so knowing the age is more important, hence the seasoning for using a year with the model name. We know it is pretty much fact that a 1995 model car will be pretty unreliable today.
A piece of software released in 1995 is just as reliable then, as it is today. I know of lots of [mainframe] software written in the 80's, and still being used today. Hence the year versioning doesn't work with software.
Bottom line, use what you feel is right. It's just a version number after all.




Member since:
2011-01-28
"Yes, because there are people like myself living in the southern hemisphere, where November is summer, not winter. :-)"
Gosh you're right!
"Using years as a version number just seems bad to me. That will make software very quickly dated. Example, running Windows Server 2008 in the year 2011. That makes windows sound very old and outdated."
I honestly don't see how this is a problem?
"I say, stick with major.minor numbers and be done with it."
The arbitrariness doesn't bug you? At least the date gives us an idea of the age.
My car is a 2.36 Toyota Corolla.