3 ms·
> Backwards compatibility is a strength, up to a point. That point being actually having to build software that was already written.
by geezerjay 10y ago
> Backwards compatibility is a strength, up to a point.
That point being actually having to build software that was already written.
- alkonaut 10y agoI can always just build my legacy code with a compiler that supports it.
- loup-vaillant 10y agoSomeone downvoter may not have understood that several compilers can still produce object code that can be linked together. Reminds me of C++ itself. Stroustrup posited that it needed syntactic compatibility with C. People had to be able to compile their own code with the new compiler, else his new language would never have been used. I'm sad to admit he was probably right. He could have settled for linking compatibility, where old modules can be used from new code (and conversely). But that probably wouldn't have worked, if only because nobody wants to deal with 2 compilers and 2 slightly different languages. Also, macros and header files. Seriously K&R, what were you thinking? Still, this is a possible path forward. To hell with syntactic compatibility, the ability to link the object files should be enough. That would at least let one use legacy libraries with the old compiler, and write the current project with the new stuff. There's just one hard part: the FFI must be seamless.