View mode: basic / threaded / horizontal-split · Log in · Help
March 10, 2012
Re: Breaking backwards compatiblity
"H. S. Teoh" <hsteoh@quickfur.ath.cx> wrote in message 
news:mailman.398.1331362435.4860.digitalmars-d@puremagic.com...
> On Sat, Mar 10, 2012 at 01:44:59AM -0500, Nick Sabalausky wrote:
>> "Adam D. Ruppe" <destructionator@gmail.com> wrote in message
>> news:wirsowklisbhbkbujewr@forum.dlang.org...
> [...]
>> > We might have a stable language, but if the library doesn't do the
>> > same, we'll never be Windows.
>
> Really? D is a stable language as of this moment? Interesting.
>
>
>> If we start freezing things now, we're going to be Windows 9x.
>
> You mean Windows 3.1.
>

I was pretty happy with 3.1. It's terrible in retrospect, but viewed in the 
context of the early 90's, I don't think it was bad at all. Maybe not as 
stable as the Unix of the time (I wouldn't know), but it was usable by mere 
mortals and was still a lot more robust than WinMe.

But then around the time of 98SE and Me, the 9x line just wasn't up to even 
the current expectations of the time. (And maybe my memory's foggy, but I 
seem to remember having more troubles with 98 than I did with 3.1. And Me 
was definitely much worse.)
March 10, 2012
Roadmap (was Re: Breaking backwards compatiblity)
On Fri, 09 Mar 2012 14:32:58 -0800
Walter Bright <newshound2@digitalmars.com> wrote:

Dear Walter,

> This is why we need to have a VERY high bar for breaking changes.

I agree with your statement above, but, personally, not having legacy D
code to take care about I'm leaving it to more expertt users here to
discuss, but I'm more concerned with another thing and that is roadmap.

It would be nice if D would have some kind of roadmap with several
milestones so that users can have some rough (it's not required that
milestones are carved in stone) idea when to expect that some things
will be fixed and/or new features added/implemented.


Sincerely,
Gour`


-- 
As the embodied soul continuously passes, in this body, 
from boyhood to youth to old age, the soul similarly passes 
into another body at death. A sober person is not bewildered 
by such a change.

http://atmarama.net | Hlapicina (Croatia) | GPG: 52B5C810
March 10, 2012
Re: Breaking backwards compatiblity
On 03/10/2012 08:31 AM, Nick Sabalausky wrote:
> I was pretty happy with 3.1. It's terrible in retrospect, but viewed in the
> context of the early 90's, I don't think it was bad at all. Maybe not as
> stable as the Unix of the time (I wouldn't know), but it was usable by mere
> mortals and was still a lot more robust than WinMe.
>
> But then around the time of 98SE and Me, the 9x line just wasn't up to even
> the current expectations of the time. (And maybe my memory's foggy, but I
> seem to remember having more troubles with 98 than I did with 3.1. And Me
> was definitely much worse.)
>
>
My grandfather still uses 3.11

I gave him my old computer (Athlon) with Windows 7. But no after a week 
he wanted his old system back.
March 10, 2012
Re: Breaking backwards compatiblity
On 10-03-2012 01:15, H. S. Teoh wrote:
> On Sat, Mar 10, 2012 at 01:02:35AM +0100, Andrej Mitrovic wrote:
>> Linus would probably hate D just as much as he hates C++. :p
>
> Yeah... I can just imagine his eye scanning the description of D and
> stopping right at the word "GC", and immediately writing a flaming
> vitriolic post to LKML about how a GC is the absolutely worst thing one
> could possibly conceive of putting inside a kernel, and that any kernel
> developer caught flirting with the idea of using D ought to have all
> kernel patches ignored from that point on.
>
> :-)
>
>
> T
>

In all fairness, a stop-the-world GC in a kernel probably *is* a 
horrible idea.

-- 
- Alex
March 10, 2012
Re: Breaking backwards compatiblity
Am 10.03.2012 06:47, schrieb Walter Bright:
> On 3/9/2012 8:40 PM, Adam D. Ruppe wrote:
>> On Windows though, even if you relied on bugs twenty
>> years ago, they bend over backward to keep your app
>> functioning. It is really an amazing feat they've
>> accomplished, both from technical and business
>> perspectives, in doing this while still moving
>> forward.
>
> I agree that Windows does a better job of it than Linux. MS really does
> pour enormous effort into backwards compatibility. You could
> legitimately call it heroic - and it has paid off for MS.

For those that don't know it, this is a great blog about how Microsoft
efforts in backwards compatibility.

http://blogs.msdn.com/b/oldnewthing/

I must say I used to be a bit anti-Microsoft while I was at university 
and discovered UNIX. But later on, I got to work for a couple of Fortune 
500 companies and got to understand why companies the size of Microsoft 
are as they are.

--
Paulo
March 10, 2012
Re: Breaking backwards compatiblity
> My grandfather still uses 3.11
>
> I gave him my old computer (Athlon) with Windows 7. But no 
> after a week he wanted his old system back.

"my old Windows 7"
Which was the newest/bestest thing a few days/weeks/months/years 
ago.
It must be hard to keep up, they release OSs faster than the time 
it takes to install or possibly booting a system! :)
March 10, 2012
Re: Breaking backwards compatiblity
On Saturday, 10 March 2012 at 08:53:23 UTC, Alex Rønne Petersen 
wrote:

> In all fairness, a stop-the-world GC in a kernel probably *is* 
> a horrible idea.

For us (desktop users), it would not differ much would it now?
March 10, 2012
Re: Breaking backwards compatiblity
On 10-03-2012 05:35, Walter Bright wrote:
> On 3/9/2012 3:14 PM, bearophile wrote:
>> D will naturally progressively slow down the rhythm of its new breaking
>> changes, but even very old languages introduce some breaking changes (see
>> some of the changes in C++11),
>
> What breaking changes are there in C++11, other than dumping export?

auto as a storage specifier. auto_ptr. Exception specifications. 
std::unary/binary_function.

-- 
- Alex
March 10, 2012
Re: Breaking backwards compatiblity
On 10-03-2012 10:09, so wrote:
> On Saturday, 10 March 2012 at 08:53:23 UTC, Alex Rønne Petersen wrote:
>
>> In all fairness, a stop-the-world GC in a kernel probably *is* a
>> horrible idea.
>
> For us (desktop users), it would not differ much would it now?
>

Linux was never intended to be a pure desktop kernel. It's used widely 
in server and embedded machines.

-- 
- Alex
March 10, 2012
Re: Breaking backwards compatiblity
On Saturday, March 10, 2012 10:12:44 Alex Rønne Petersen wrote:
> On 10-03-2012 10:09, so wrote:
> > On Saturday, 10 March 2012 at 08:53:23 UTC, Alex Rønne Petersen wrote:
> >> In all fairness, a stop-the-world GC in a kernel probably *is* a
> >> horrible idea.
> > 
> > For us (desktop users), it would not differ much would it now?
> 
> Linux was never intended to be a pure desktop kernel. It's used widely
> in server and embedded machines.

And actually, when _responsiveness_ is one of the key features that a desktop 
OS requires, a stop-the-world GC in a desktop would probably be _worse_ than 
one in a server.

- Jonathan M Davis
2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10
Top | Discussion index | About this forum | D home