3 ms·
From what I have seen, the issue is that in big risk-adverse entreprise, the mentality of "don't change anything if it works" goes a bit too far. I feel a bit
by seren 11y ago
From what I have seen, the issue is that in big risk-adverse entreprise, the mentality of "don't change anything if it works" goes a bit too far.
I feel a bit ashamed, but to give you some rough idea of the age of the toolchain, the c++ compiler we are using does not even support namespace. We are slowly fazing out old platforms but this is really a long drawn struggle. Basically you have to wait that the underlying HW is not produced anymore for 10 years, before maybe thinking the SW side should be upgraded.
I would be very eager to use some nice feature of Cpp11 but it won't be in this company...
- pjmlp 11y agoNo reason to be ashamed, I have seen many companies that only use platform SDKs (e.g. aC++ on HP-UX) and IT has the last word over what tools are allowed on dev machines. However the situation is no different in other languages. I am aware of some companies still using Java 5 on production, just to cite one example.
- nickpsecurity 11y agoI know one major retailer whose terminals are all a DOS variant whose sales ended in 1999 and whose inventory is hard-tied to SCO UNIX. Got future-proof written all over those. ;) Note: Many key operations, including the backend, are on AS/400 and mainframe. Much wiser choices. Needless to say, the employees tell me that part never goes down.